Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKERin the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Hartlepool Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Bill,

Metropolitan Railway Bill,

Port of London Bill,

Bolton Corporation Bill (by Order),

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA,

CALCUTTA CORPORATION (MR. S. C. BOSE).

Mr. THURTLE: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India how long Mr. S. C. Bose, chief executive officer of the Calcutta Corporation, has been detained without trial under the Bengal Criminal Ordinance?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The person named was arrested under the Regulation of 1818 at the end of October, 1924, and was placed under the Ordinance on the 19th January, 1925.

BENGAL LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (MR. A. N. ROY).

Mr. THURTLE: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the reasons for the recent release of one of the Indian political prisoners, Mr. A. N. Roy?

Mr. JOHNSTON: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Mr. A. Roy, professor of philosophy and member of the Bengal Legislative Council, has been released after 17 months' detention without charge or trial; and whether, in view of the published statement of a member of the Government of India that a mistake had been made in this case, and with a view
to the relief of public apprehension, he will order a full and detailed impartial re-examination of the cases of all the other men detained under the Bengal Ordinance?

Earl WINTERTON: Mr. Roy was released on 26th March, 1926, by the Local Government on his giving an assurance to take no part in terrorism, but to do all in his power to discourage it. He was made acquainted on the 25th November, 1924, with the four charges against him, and wrote a reply to those charges, which was considered by the two Judges who examined his case. The information against, him was convincing, and the suggestion that any member of the Government of India admitted that a mistake was made in his case surprises me. There is no reason to suggest any re-examination of the cases since a periodical examination of the nature desired is required by the law. I would invite attention also to the reply I gave on this point to the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) on the 15th March.

Mr. THURTLE: Can the Noble Lord say whether this Mr. Roy was a member of a terrorist organisation?

Earl WINTERTON: As I have said in answer to the question, all these cases have to be considered by two Judges, who make a report to the Government. As it happens, I have read the account of the proceedings before the Judges and the report made to the Government, and the impression left on my mind is that there is no doubt whatever that Mr. Roy was guilty of having broken the law.

Mr. THURTLE: Now that it has been found possible, consistently with public safety, to release Mr. Roy, will not the Government of India consider the release of all otherdetinues who have been charged on precisely the same grounds as Mr. Roy?

Earl WINTERTON: No, because these cases are naturally different one from the other, and have to be considered on their merits. In this particular case, Mr. Roy, as I have said, gave an undertaking that he would not take any further part in proceedings in which he had taken part, and as a result of which he had been condemned. For these reasons he was released.

Mr. THURTLE: May I press the Noble Lord further? Provided the otherdetinues are prepared to give a similar undertaking, will their release be considered?

Earl W1NTERTON: That is a rather theoretical question, and, as I have said, these eases must be considered on their merits.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Are we right in assuming from the Noble Lord's original reply that the reference in the question to a public statement said to have been made by a member of the Government that a mistake had been made is not correct; and, if so, will the Noble Lord have attention drawn to the fact publicly?

Earl WINTERTON: I have searched all the available information, and have read all the Debates on the subject in India, and can find no confirmation whatever of the statement made by the hon. Member. Perhaps he will communicate with me privately his grounds for making the allegation in the question.

Mr. THURTLE: May I point out that it is my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) who makes that statement in his question?

Earl WINTERTON: It was to the hon. Member for Dundee I should have referred.

SPECIALIST AND PROVINCIAL OFFICERS.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to give definite information as to the decisions come to by the Government of India in regard to the extension of the provisions of the Lee Commission Report to provincial officers of non-Asiatic domicile appointed by the Secretary of State in Council; and whether a decision and, if so, what decision has been come to in regard to officers of the same denomination and domiciliary position appointed by authorities other than the Secretary of State in Council?

Mr. PILCHER: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, despite the recommendations contained in paragraph 61 of the Lee Commission's Report, specialist officers who are not members of any
organised Indian service have not yet been accorded concessions analogous to those accorded to the members of organised services and that, in consequence, there exists discontent among such officers; and whether he is now able to name a definite date on which the necessary orders will be passed and action taken on these cases?

Earl WINTERTON: My Noble Friend has now received the first two lists of recommendations from the Government of India regarding the extension of the Lee concessions to officers appointed by the Secretary of State in Council to specialist and provincial posts, and he expects to communicate his decisions thereon to the Government of India in about a fortnight's time. It would not be proper for me to enter into details at the present moment, but I have every reason to hope that a number of these officers where the duties, of their posts are superior in character will receive from 1st April, 1924, such of the Lee concessions in regard to sterling overseas pay, passages and enhanced pensions as may be appropriate to each individual's case. My Noble Friend has not as yet received from the Government of India recommendations in regard to officers appointed by authorities other than the Secretary of State in Council. The Government of India are aware of the need for expedition in the matter and their recommendations are expected at an early date.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Will particulars of these decisions he made public after being communicated to the Government of India?

Earl WINTERTON: As soon as the decisions have been reached, they will be made public at once.

MEDICAL SERVICE.

Colonel APPLIN: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that officers of the Indian subordinate medical service who served with the Army throughout the War, and have since qualified in Great Britain in medicine and surgery, are debarred from entering the Indian Medical Service because their War Service prevented them qualifying within the age limit; and if he will consider extending the
age limit to 34 years in the case of medical officers who have been prevented from qualifying before reaching the age of 32 by reason of such War service?

Earl WINTERTON: Admission to the Indian Medical Service of members of the Indian Medical Department was one of the matters raised by the recent Anglo-Indian Deputation. My hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion will be considered when the Government of India's views have been ascertained.

Colonel APPLIN: Is the Noble Lord aware that these subordinate medical officers have done five years' service in the field in the same capacity as that in which they would act were they admitted to the service?

Earl WINTERTON: Of course, my hon. and gallant friend is aware that it was not held out to these men when they entered the medical service that there was any reasonable expectation that they would obtain what is in fact promotion in the Indian Medical Service, and cases of officers promoted before the War were very rare. Certain promotions were made as a result of war service, but I cannot give any undertaking on the specific point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend.

SUPERIOR SERVICES (FAMILY PENSION FUND).

Mr. PILCHER: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the scheme for endowing the All-India services other than the Indian Civil Service with a family pension fund has made any further progress since the Lee Commission asserted in March, 1924, that actuarial experts were then engaged upon it, and expressed surprise that so long a. delay had occurred in supplying a need in favour of which there was a strong consensus of opinion?

Earl WINTERTON: Yes, Sir; a provisional scheme for the institution of a family pension fund for the European members of the superior services other than the Indian Civil Service has been drawn up and sent to the Government of India for their consideration.

ILLICIT DISTILLATION, BOMBAY.

Mr. PILCHER: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in
view of the statement in the Bombay Excise Department's latest Report to the effect that, contemporaneously with a theoretical reduction in the consumption of local liquor and the number of liquor shops, the illicit distillation of spirituous liquors is increasing and spreading into areas where it has been hitherto unknown, the Secretary of State will use his influence to support the Department's insistence that either the existing Excise staff must be materially increased or a. reversion made to the former policy in the best interest of the masses?

Earl WINTERTON: I have seen the statements in the 1924–25 Excise Administration Report for Bombay to which my hon. Friend refers, but I must remind him that Excise is a transferred subject in Bombay, for the administration of which the Governor, acting with his Ministers, is responsible. That being the case, my Noble Friend is unable to interfere with the discretion of the local government in dealing with the matter. It may possibly have escaped my hon. Friend's notice that in the Resolution of the Government of Bombay recorded on the Report it was announced that a substantial increase in the Excise force of the Presidency had recently been sanctioned.

BOMBAY RECLAMATION SCHEME.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 10.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the names of the persons who will be appointed to conduct the investigation into the breakdown of the Bombay Back Bay reclamation scheme or, failing the names, the constitution of the body which is to be so appointed?

Earl WINTERTON: I am not yet in a position to make any statement.

CALCUTTA RIOTS.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 11.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can give final figures of the number of killed and injured in the recent Calcutta riots; and whether the conditions in the city are now normal?

Earl WINTERTON: The latest official messages say that there have been 42 deaths and that 571 injured persons have been treated in the hospitals: also that conditions in the city are gradually becoming normal.

PROSTITUTION.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the conditions of brothels in the great cities of India; and if he is aware that in Calcutta many hundreds of young girls from 9 to 13 years of age are at present in brothels?

Earl WINTERTON: The Bengal Legislative Council passed in 1923 a special measure to deal in general with the control of brothels, and, in particular, with the removal of minor girls from them. I should hope, therefore, that the statement made in the last part of the question is no longer accurate, though I have no definite information. My Noble Friend thinks it would be inconsistent with the present Indian Constitution if he were to direct an all-India inquiry into the question of prostitution, the control of which is primarily the responsibility of the provinces. Moreover he has no reason to think that the local Governments and their Legislatures are not fully alive to the necessity of vigilance.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: On a point of Order. Is not this question one which ought to be dealt with primarily by the Government of India, and, therefore, one which ought not to be put down in the first instance for answer in this House?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have said more than once that it is difficult for me always to understand the distinctions between reserved and non-reserved subjects, and there are some questions which I have to leave for the Minister to deal with. I think that his answer shows that this is a local question.

Sir H. CRAIK: Does the fact of a subject being reserved or not make any difference, seeing that reserved and unreserved questions are equally under the supervision of the Government of India? Under the peculiar administration of the Government of India, the fact of a subject being reserved or non-reserved does not permit of interference by this House with the details of the Government of India.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must remind the right hon. Baronet that, by the Government of India Act, the salary of the Sec-
retary of State was put on the Estimates, in order that this House might have, in proper cases, an opportunity of discussing the affairs of India. So that I cannot accept a wholesale suggestion of that kind.

Sir H. CRAIK: Of course, I accept that fully, and even, if I may presume to say so, cordially agree with it. At the same time, it does not alter theprima facie question whether a matter of detail is a matter primarily for this House. That is a most important political question.

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot pretend to the intimate knowledge of India which the right hon. Baronet possesses; all I can say is that I do my best to steer the right course.

Mr. J. JONES: In view of the fact that India is not yet a self-governing country, have not the Members of this House the right to put down questions with regard to the Government of India?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that may be taken from the answer I have just given.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES (LONDON CONFERENCE).

Viscount SANDON: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will publish a Report of the proceedings and decisions of the London Conference of West Indian representatives; whether such conferences are to be repeated; and, if so, how often?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): The Conference to which my Noble Friend refers has been convened to consider the establishment and constitution of a standing body, meeting at regular intervals, to deal with the common affairs of the Colonies concerned. The answers to the second and third parts of the question depend, therefore, on the decisions of the Conference. A Report on the proceedings and decisions of the Conference will be published.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL CIVIL SERVICE (CHINESE EMPLOYES).

Mr. CAMPBELL: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether
any steps, and, if so, what, have been taken to employ to any extent British subjects of Chinese origin in the Colonial Civil Service in those Colonies where Chinese form a large proportion of the population; and how many such emploés there are in the Colonial service in the Federated Malay States and the Straits Settlements?

Mr. AMERY: There are large numbers of British subjects of Chinese origin in the service of the Governments of Hong-kong, the Federated Malay States and the Straits Settlements, but I regret that I am not in a position to give the precise figures desired by my hon. Friend. In other Colonies the Chinese inhabitants form hut an insignificant proportion of the total population.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAY STATES (PRAI WHARVES).

Mr. CAMPBELL: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the amount of money which has been expended on the construction of the Prai wharves in the Malay States; what was the original contract price and what is the final outlay; what is now proposed to do with the wharves; and whether there have been any strictures of the system under which the consulting engineers act as arbitrators between the contractor and the Government and advice the Government although they themselves possess a financial interest in the award?

Mr. AMERY: The original contract amount was for £971,097, but additional works were authorised, bringing the total to £1,015,297. The ultimate figure at which the contractors agreed to complete the work was £1,590,000, the difference being due to a modification in the contract owing to the rise in prices of labour and materials in 1920. The total expenditure at Prai, including railways, acquisition of land, wharves, reclamation and dredging is £2,500,000, approximately. Owing to an unexpected increase in the quantity of dredging necessary to maintain the depths and area prescribed for berthing ocean-going ships, it was decided to abandon maintenance as it was considered that the present trade did not justify the heavy annual charge. It is understood that at the Federal Council meeting on the 8th March the Chief Secretary stated that
further professional advice should be sought as to the best course to adopt under the circumstances, and in the meantime the wharves are used for goods dealt with in lighters or small vessels. Criticism has been directed in the Federal Council against the system of remuneration of the consulting engineers, but the system under which the consulting engineers arbitrate on questions arising out of the contract documents is that which is, in fact, customary in works of this class.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

MIDDLE EAST DEPARTMENT (STORES AUDITOR).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why be has found it necessary to appoint a stores auditor in the Middle East Department; what are his official functions; and will the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the need for economy, reconsider his decision?

Mr. AMERY: An officer has recently been appointed to carry out an independent audit of the Stores Accounts of the Iraq Levies. The appointment, which is of a purely temporary nature, is considered necessary in the interests of public economy.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: What is the salary of this gentleman?

Mr. AMERY: Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me notice of that question.

ELECTRICITY COMMISSION.

Viscount SANDON: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of its suitability, he will transfer the Electricity Department from the Ministry of Transport to the Board of Trade?

The PRIME MINISTER: There is no Electricity Department of the Ministry of Transport. My Noble Friend presumably refers to the Electricity Commission, which was set up by the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, as a separate body responsible to the Minister of Transport. I see no advantage in altering that arrangement.

SECRETARIES' DEPARTMENTS (PERMANENT STAFFS).

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether the increase
which has occurred in the permanent staff of the secretaries' departments of almost every Ministry since the beginning of the late War, out of all proportion to the increase in the permanent staffs in other departments of the Ministries, is the outcome of a definite policy; and what objects it is designed to serve?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I am not aware that disproportionate increases have occurred in the staffs of secretaries' departments since August, 1914. Such Increases as have occurred are accounted for by increases in the volume and complexity of work.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: May I ask whether, in increasing other departments, the right hon. Gentleman will also consider decreasing the secretaries' department, which in many cases is out of proportion to the increases in other departments?

Mr. McNEILL: I should not like to commit myself to those figures, but I cannot agree with that observation.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOMINICA (GRANT).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies en what grounds a grant of £22,000 is being made this year to the Island of Dominica?

Mr. AMERY: The lime industry, the staple crop of Dominica, has been seriously damaged and in some parts of the island entirely destroyed by a fungus disease known as withertip which appeared first in May, 1922. Owing to the disastrous effect this had upon the general economic condition of the island, Sir Francis Watts was sent there to report upon agricultural conditions and in particular to recommend what steps should be taken to establish fresh industries on a self-supporting basis. His Majesty's Government, having considered his recommendations, are providing £18,000 towards the cost of carrying them out during the current financial year. Of this sum £13,400 will be by way of loan. A further£4,000 is being provided as the result of strong representations made to me by the professional members of the Colonial Advisory Medical and Sanitary Committee on the need of a sanitary cam-
paign, and it is proposed to appoint and send out a medical officer of health and a qualified sanitary inspector to initiate the necessary reforms.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: After the millions which have been poured out in Iraq, is not this a case of straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel?

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (ARCOS TRADING COMPANY).

Mr. CAMPBELL: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Soviet chief of the Arcos organisation in Palestine has been deported by Lord Plumer for anti-British propaganda; whether the British Government has received any representations on the subject from the Soviet Government; if so, what reply has been sent; whether Arcos is still operating in Palestine; and whether he has received any Report from the British High Commissioner on its activities within the past year?

Mr. AMERY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The High Commissioner has, however, taken steps to prevent the re-admission to Palestine of the local manager of Arcos, who is at present understood to be travelling in Europe. No official representations on the subject have been received from the Soviet Government, but the matter has been raised informally by the Soviet Chargé d'Affaires in London, who has been informed that it is not proposed to interfere with the discretion of the local authorities. I am not aware that Arcos has ceased to operate in Palestine. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Commander O. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think the time has arrived to withdraw the recognition of the Soviet Government by this country?

Mr. AMERY: That does not fall within my Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANTIGUA.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any representations from Antigua with regard to their finances; and what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. AMERY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Governor has already appointed a Commission of Inquiry into the incidence of taxation in the Presidency, and I have asked him also to cause the whole expenditure to be reviewed by a Committee of the Legislative Council appointed ad hoc at a convenient time. I would add, however, that expenditure has been reduced from£84,123 in 1924–25 to £77,465 in 1926–27.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL COLLEGE OF TROPICAL AGRICULTURE.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give the names of the Crown Colonies and Protectorates who contribute towards the upkeep of the Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture; and the amount given by each?

Mr. AMERY: As the answer can most conveniently be given in the form of a table, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:


IMPERIAL COLLEGE OF TROPICAL AGRICULTURE.


Contributions from Colonial Governments.



£


Antigua
385


*Barbados
2,174


British Guiana
1,000


*Dominica
259


Grenada
600


*Montserrat
95


*Saint Kitts
444


Saint Lucia
378


Saint Vincent
285


Trinidad and Tobago
8,100


*Virgin Islands
51


British Honduras
50


Gold Coast
500


Nigeria
1,200


Total
£15,534


*The figures relate to 1925-26. In all other cases to the current financial year.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERAK (HYDRO-ELECTRIC SCHEME).

Mr. PENNY: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the action of the Malay States Government in not submitting for the consideration of the Federal Council the contract for the Perak hydro-electric scheme until it was actually signed; and whether he will, in future, suggest to the British representatives on the spot the desirability of permitting some prior deliberation by these members of great undertakings of this nature before the colony is actually committed to them without possibility of any modification of details?

Mr. AMERY: My attention had not previously been called to the circumstance to which my hon. Friend refers, but I will invite the High Commissioner's observations on the point which he has raised. My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that it is the State of Perak, and not the Government of the Federated Malay States, which was a party to the agreement in question.

Mr. PENNY: May we take it for granted that the Government have some say in the matter, although it appertains to Perak alone?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, I think there is a general supervision.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (ANTI-BRITISH STRIKE AND BOYCOTT).

. VIANT: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made with a view to effecting a settlement of the anti-British strike and boycott against Hong Kong; and whether he will stale the number of Chinese workers who left the colony on strike, and the amount claimed on their behalf in respect of strike pay and compensation for non-reinstatement?

Mr. AMERY: Informal conversations between representatives of the Hong Kong and Canton Governments have recently taken place, and it is hoped that negotiations will shortly be resumed. I have no precise information as to the number of Chinese workmen who left the Colony on strike, but the strike at Hong Kong has for some months been for all
intents and purposes a thing of the past and the Governor stated in February that almost the whole body of Hong Kong labourers was again at work. With regard to the third part of the question, I am not aware that any definite figure has been claimed.

Mr. LOOKER: Is it not a fact that the strikers' committee have reaped an enormous financial harvest by the illegal exactions which they have extorted from the cargoes of all nationalities except the. British allowed to land in Canton, and will the right hon. Gentleman support the Hong Kong Government in its refusal to recognise claims of an exorbitant and wholly unjustifiable nature?

Mr. AMERY: No, I certainly would not encourage the. Hong Kong Government to recognise any exorbitant or unjustifiable claims.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs who is the imperial representative in Australia of the Overseas Settlement Department; where is his office; and whether it is a permanent appointment?

Mr. AMERY: Mr. W. Bankes Amery, C.B.E., the finance Officer of the Over-sea Settlement Committee, was appointed representative of the Oversea Settlement Office in Australia in connection with the new migration agreement, and took up his duties in August last. The intention is that Mr. Bankes Amery should remain in Australia for two or three years. His headquarters arc at Melbourne.

Sir HENRY COWAN: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is now in a position to give the House full information as to the constitution and functions of the; representative non-political committee recently appointed by the Commonwealth Government to advise on migration, national development, and the utilisation of the natural resources of Australia, in view of the bearing of these questions upon emigration from this country?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir. I have been informed by telegram by the representa-
Live of the Oversea Settlement Office in Australia that the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth has officially announced his intention to appoint a migration and development commission, representing all classes of the community— but I have received no information beyond this as to its constitution and functions.

Mr. HURD: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs how many migrants have gone to Canada this year under each of the assisted schemes; and how many applicants have not been accepted?

Mr. AMERY: Up to the end of March, 6,580 persons had been accepted, and 2,656 had actually sailed under the Canadian Assisted Passage Scheme. Included in the acceptances are 3,039 persons proceeding under the scheme for the settlement of 3,000 British families on the land in Canada. It is not possible to state the number of applicants who have not been accepted, as the greater number of applications are made at the local offices of the Canadian Government Agents throughout the country, and only those which seem suitable for acceptance are forwarded to the Director of Migration in London.

Mr. HURD: Seeing that the first three months of the year are the most effective season for emigration, does the right hon. Gentleman regard those figures as satisfactory?

Mr. AMERY: I should like to see the figures as large as possible.

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it is that the whole of these people who have been accepted have not gone out to Canada?

Mr. AMERY: It is a question of arrangements to be made and of shipping facilities, but I am afraid I could not answer offhand.

Mr. SKELTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what number of persons who have gone have left agricultural occupations?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question will require notice.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider issuing a return giving this information for every
Dominion and adding to the return figures relative to private and semiprivate schemes of migration?

Mr. AMERY: Yes. I think those figures will be included in the annual Report of the Oversea Settlement Committee, which I hope will be in the hands of hon. Members in two or three weeks' time.

Mr. PALING: In view of the large difference in the numbers of those who have been accepted and of those who have actually got across, what has been done with the amount of money that was set aside for this purpose some years ago, and of which, I believe, only about one fifth has been used in each year?

Mr. AMERY: As regards the difference in this case, I imagine that a large number of the acceptances have been fairly recently made, and it is simply a question of the arrangements to get them overseas. In regard to the other question, namely, the difference between the money, not set aside, but that Parliament was prepared to pay in co-operation with the Dominions and the amount that the Dominions were prepared to spend in cooperation with us, it has been due to a large variety of causes, which have been more than once discussed in this House.

Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that there are many more applicants who are passed as being fit and wanting to go across than can get across, and, in view of that fact, does it not seem curious that when there is the money there to spend those two reasons cannot be brought together and the question settled?

Mr. SPEAKER: This is becoming a Debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

SMALL HOLDINGS.

Mr. FENBY: 31.
asked the Minister of Agriculture when he proposes to introduce legislation for the further extension of small holdings?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): Good progress is being made in regard to the preparation of the Bill referred to by the hon. Member, but I regret that I am not yet in a position to state the date when it will be introduced.

Mr. FENBY: Will it be this Session?

Mr. GUINNESS: I have every hope that it will be.

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: Will the introduction of legislation depend on the completion of the valuation which is taking place this month, and is that proceeding rapidly?

Mr. GUINNESS: The valuation is going on quite rapidly, but the new legislation does not depend in any way on winding-up the existing schemes.

Mr. SKELTON: Will the Bill referred to apply to Scotland, or will that country have a separate Bill?

Mr. GUINNESS: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question to the Secretary for Scotland.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are the prospective new small holdings going to be self-supporting?

Mr. BUXTON: 39.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, having regard to the fact that the official statistics of holdings not exceeding 50 acres include many residential properties and accommodation fields not occupied by smallholders, he will arrange that provision be made for obtaining in the next Returns statistics showing the number of genuine small holdings and the number of holdings devoted to other purposes?

Mr. GUINNESS: Inquiries have recently been made through the crop reporters regarding the number of residential properties, accommodation fields and similar types of land which are included as agricultural holdings in the official statistics. It is hoped to publish the results of these inquiries in the Report on the Census of Agricultural Production, which will probably be issued before the end of the year.

Mr. BUXTON: Is it not the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that the present statistics are very unreliable evidence as to the supposed decrease of small holdings?

Mr. GUINNESS: Yes. I do not think it is possible to base upon the existing statistics any assumption that the number of small holdings proper has been decreased, and we are asking for it to be indicated in the parish lists which hold-
ings are accommodation fields, residential properties, etc., so that in future we may know more about it.

Mr. PALING: Can the right. hon. Gentleman say about what time this information will be available?

Mr. GUINNESS: We hope to publish the Report before the end of the year. It takes a considerable time to prepare.

HOP CONTROL.

Commander BELLAIRS: 32 and 33.
asked the Minister of Agriculture (1) when the hop control came to an end; whether any hop controller or committee is now acting in an official or any other capacity of control over hops; and, if so, to what extent and by what authority over the sale of the 1924 crop;
(2) whether the advisory committee of the English 1924 hop crop is an official or voluntary body; and to what extent and by what authority it exercises control over this particular crop?

Mr. GUINNESS: The hop control came to an end on the 16th August, 1925. A liquidator of the control was appointed by the then Minister of Agriculture, acting under the powers conferred upon him by an Order made in pursuance of Section 4 (2) of the Ministry of Food (Continuance) Act, 1920. In exercising his functions the liquidator constituted an advisory committee representative of the interests involved, but this Committee was a voluntary body and, as such, exercised DO control over the hops in respect of which the liquidator had jurisdiction.
The liquidator has recently resigned, but the committee continues to give me such advice as I may from time to time require.

Mr. PALING: Is it a fact. that since the Hop Controller ceased to function the hop growers have given notice that this year there will be a large number of acres less under cultivation than previously?

Mr. GUINNESS: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

CATTLE ABORTION.

Brigadier-General C. BROWN: 34.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether
he can estimate, roughly, the losses in money values suffered by farmers in England, Scotland and Wales, respectively, in 1925, from abortion; and whether experiments are being made to discover a cure for this scourge?

Mr. GUINNESS: As epizootic abortion is not notifiable, I have no means of ascertaining the actual extent of the disease, and the data in my possession are insufficient to enable any estimate to be made of the losses to farmers which are due to abortion. The use of an immunising vaccine prepared in the Ministry's Laboratory has proved successful with non-pregnant animals, and an average of 26,000 doses have been supplied annually during the past seven years. This disease has been under careful investigation for a number of years, both in this country and abroad.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that losses of farmers from abortion are much greater than from tuberculosis, and whether any steps are taken when stores are imported into this country to examine them to see if this disease is being brought into this country in the same way as they are tested on lauding against tuberculosis?

Mr. GUINNESS: I will let my hon. and gallant Friend know what steps are taken to examine for disease in such cases. I understand that contagious abortion only shows itself when animals are breeding and I do not see that examination for this disease in stores, seeing that they are incapable of breeding, would have any useful effect.

TUBERCULOSIS ORDER, 1925.

Brigadier-General BROWN: 35.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many animals have been destroyed under the Tuberculosis Order of 1925; how much compensation has been paid on this account by the Government; and how much by the county rates?

Mr. GUINNESS: From the 1st September, 1925, when the Order came into operation, up to the 31st December last, 7,151 cattle were slaughtered by local authorities and £31,294 paid by them in compensation. In accordance with the Diseases of Animals Act, 1925, £23,470 has been refunded by the Ministry,
leaving the remaining quarter of the cost, or £7,823, to be met out of local rates. I understand that the local authorities have also received £7,958 by the salvage of carcases, which more than covers their share of the compensation.

Brigadier-General BROWN: May ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the local authorities bear a very much heavier burden, and if he will look into the matter to see that the extra administrative expenses, veterinary fees, etc., which now go on to the rates, are paid for by the Government?

Mr. GUINNESS: I think it is a generous settlement that the State really bears the whole cost of the compensation, and I cannot hold out any prospects of any further legislation at the present time.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to how much extra expense is thrown on the rates by this Order?

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Mr. SAVERY: 36.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what progress has been made by State research in detecting the causes of foot-and-mouth disease, and whether any effective remedy has been discovered?

Mr. GUINNESS: The first progress Report of the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Research Committee, which was published by His Majesty's Stationery Office last year, sets out in considerable detail the progress attained in the investigations into the cause of this disease. A further progress Report is now in preparation by the Committee. No effective preventive has yet been discovered.

Mr. FENBY: Are the right hon. Gentleman and his Department still convinced that the slaughter policy is the best one for dealing with this epidemic?

Mr. GUINNESS: Yes, Sir.

Mr. FENBY: How much money was set aside for the slaughter policy during this financial year, and how much has been spent?

Mr. GUINNESS: There is a certain amount set aside under an annual Vote, but we always have to take a Supplementary Estimate when foot-and-mouth disease is rife in the country. If the hon.
Gentleman will put down a question, I will give him the exact figures.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is there not an international committee investigating these questions under the auspices of the League of Nations, and is the right hon. Gentleman's Department in full liaison with this committee?

Mr. GUINNESS: Sir William Leishman's Committee is in close touch with all investigations going on.

TRAINING CENTRES.

Mr. SAVERY: 37.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many students have been received at the agricultural training centres which are open to intending emigrants and whether 'he proposes to increase the number of these centres?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I have been asked to reply. The number of men in training in these centres with a view to employment in the Oversea Dominions was, on 10th April, 183. In addition, 43 men who had received a course of training at the Claydon Training Centre proceeded to Canada on the 27th March. The question of increasing the number of centres will receive careful consideration.

Mr. PALING: May I ask whether the students who are in these training schools are being allowed to stay on the land in this country?

Mr. BETTERTON: This question only refers to those who are intending to proceed overseas. There are, in addition, a very considerable number of trainees who are intending to stay in this country.

Mr. RILEY: Will the Parliamentary Secretary state how many, if any, of ate student trainees have been settled in the Dominions?

Mr. BETTERTON: The only batch which has gone up to the present is one of 43 men, who left on the 27th March.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that equivalent agricultural education is available for young men who desire to remain in their own country?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is another question.

SANDY LAND IMPROVEMENT, METHWOLD.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 38.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any useful result accrued in 1924–25 from experiments in the improvement of the sandy lands at Methwold, Norfolk, to justify the loss incurred of some £16,000 in that year and a total loss of about £45,000; and, if not, whether this undertaking will be closed down?

Mr. GUINNESS: The experiments at Methwold were brought to a close in March, 1925, because it had become clear, that in the present state of scientific knowledge, and under existing economic conditions, no useful purpose would be served by their continuance. This, in itself, was a useful result. It does not follow that the experiments were unjustified because the results were negative. A full report on the experiments is in preparation.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANCIENT MONUMENTS, SHROPSHIRE.

Viscount SANDON: 40.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether any answer has been returned to the communication sent by the Shropshire Archæological Society in February relative to the state of various abbeys in that county; and whether the Department purpose taking immediate steps to protect such ancient monuments, such as Lilleshall and Haughmond Abbeys, which are of historic interest, and are rapidly approaching a state which will place them beyond repair?

Captain HACKING (for the FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): A communication was received from the society in February in regard to Lilleshall Abbey, and the Department has been in communication with the owner on the subject. The monuments in question are protected to the extent of being scheduled, and, perhaps, the most important, Buildwas Abbey, has recently been taken into the Department's custody.

Viscount SANDON: Would it not have been more courteous if the Department had sent a reply of some kind during the course of the past two months?

Captain HACKING: Perhaps my Noble Friend will allow me to communicate with him on that point. I know there has been delay, and I regret it.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN (BRITISH COAL EXPORTS).

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received any reply from the Spanish Government regarding the protest made by His Majesty's Government concerning the provisions of the decree organising the sale and use of coal in that country; and whether he can make any statement on the subject?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): No, Sir. His Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid has reported that when he recently recalled this matter to the attention of the Spanish Government he was informed that it was still receiving their consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCARNO TREATY.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any and, if so, which nations have not yet deposited the ratifications of the Treaty of Locarno at Geneva?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: None of the contracting parties have so far deposited their ratifications of the Treaty of Locarno with the League of Nations.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to continue his efforts to have this Treaty ratified?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not certain that I caught the question. If I rightly understood the point, I propose to continue my endeavours to have this Treaty ratified.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I am afraid I did not quite hear the right hon. Gentleman's reply. Did he say that no nation had as yet ratified?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: None has yet ratified.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to continue his efforts to get the Treaty ratified?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not a question of my efforts. But for the Government crisis, the change of Government in France, and all the urgent business, I think the Treaty, which has already passed the French Chamber, and is unanimously accepted by the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, would have passed the French Senate. The French Government desire the approval of the Senate, and as soon as it has been obtained, I believe all the Governments will be in possession of the authority they require.

Mr. PALING: Is there a doubt that some of the Governments may not ratify?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly not. There is no doubt about that.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister when the Second Reading of the Merchandise Marks Bill will be taken?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I regret that I cannot at present name a date.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the rising opposition in the country to this Bill?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to make a statement on the proposed Ministry of Defence?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave him on Thursday last arising out of the statement on business, and to the debate on the Report stage of the Air Estimates on the 8th March.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMBINED WAR COLLEGE.

Commander BELLAIRS: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Chief of the Staff's Committee has ever investigated and made a Report, from the point of efficiency and economy, of a combined
war college to supersede the present separate war and staff colleges?

The PRIME MINISTER: The question is under consideration by the Government. All appropriate authorities, including the Committee mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend, are being consulted.

Commander BELLAIRS: Has this Committee ever investigated this question? We have been told that it functions, and this is the most important question that it can investigate?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think my answer replies to the point which has been raised.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE PRODUCE (MARKETING).

Mr. HURD: 50.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the declaration by the Prime Minister of Canada of the willingness of the Canadian Government to enact measures to keep British preference trade to Canadian ports; and whether this limitation will be observed in the administration of the grant towards the marketing of Empire produce in this country?

Mr. AMERY: I have been asked to reply to this question. I have seen Press reports of the statement by the Prime Minister of Canada to which my hon. Friend refers. I am afraid that not only geographical conditions in certain parts of the Empire, but the actual character of the expenditure under the grant would make it impracticable to adopt the suggestion contained in the latter part of the question.

Mr. HURD: May I ask the Colonial Secretary whether this is not a matter upon which it would be useful to seek the advice of the Canadian Government?

Mr. AMERY: We hope to IA in the closest touch with the Imperial Economic Committee on which the views of Canada are represented. I doubt, however, if it is feasible to advocate, for instance, the consumption of Empire apples shipped through particular channels.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOSUL FRONTIER.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
whether any progress is being made towards agreement with Turkey on the subject of the Mosul frontier?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Ambassador left Constantinople on the 16th April for Angora, where he will resume negotiations with the Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCO-TURKISH TREATY.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 57.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now at liberty to state the terms of the last concluded treaty between France and Turkey?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that the final text has not yet been settled.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Will the Foreign Secretary undertake to insist that when the final text is settled and deposited at Geneva in accordance with the existing Treaty—

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Will I do what? I did not catch the hon. and gallant Member's question.

Captain GARRO-JONES: In view of the fact that there exists a belief that this Treaty is intended to be a. secret Treaty, will the right hon. Gentleman insist upon its proper publication in accordance with international law at Geneva?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I know of no shadow of foundation for the belief which the hon. and gallant Member says exists— I presume in his own mind; I do not know that it exists anywhere else. It is not for this Government to insist upon action by another Government.

Captain GARRO-J ONES: Does the Foreign Secretary mean by that that if the Covenant of the League of Nations is broken by another nation to our disadvantage he will take no steps in the matter?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. In the first place, I think it is wholly wrong to suggest, without a shadow of foundation, as far as I know, that another Government proposes to break its engage-
rnents made under the Covenant of the League of Nations; and in the second place, it is not for His Majesty's Government, but for the League of Nations itself to take up the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEAT AND TONIC WINES.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: 60.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that many of the meat and tonic wines, widely advertised as containing no drugs, contain, according to the British Medical Association certification, from 15 to 20 per cent. of alcohol; and will he take into consideration the advisability of compulsory notification as to such particulars on the bottles?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): This question was considered by the Select Committee on Patent Medicines, which reported in 1914; and the Hon. Member's suggestion, which is in accordance with the Committee's recommendation, will be considered in connection with any legislation for the purpose of regulating the sale of secret or patent medicines.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a declaration has been made by Dr. W. McAdam Eccles, the eminent surgeon and specialist adviser to the King, to the effect that "The public should not be deluded by but protected from specious advertisements of these so-called medicated meat or food wines."

Sir K. WOOD: I am not aware of that statement, but I know the Committee came to the conclusion summarised in the hon. Member's question. It is a matter which would need legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEGRAPHS (ANNUAL LOSS).

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 62.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will state the annual loss on the telegraphic system; and whether any schemes are to be undertaken to make the system self-supporting?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): During the financial year, 1924–1925, there was a loss on the telegraph service of £1,645,525,
including interest and depreciation charges and a non-recurrent payment of over £300,000 in respect of arrears of bonus. Details are given in the published Post Office Commercial Accounts. Figures for the year 1925–1926 are not yet available. Every effort is made to reduce the loss by economies in staff, lines and apparatus, but the service cannot be rendered self-supporting at the existing tariff in face, of the continuously extending use of the telephone.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: May I ask the Noble Lord whether, considering the enormous loss on the telegraphic system, his Department is taking any steps to make the system self-supporting by an increase in case of need on the message rate should it not pay its way?

Viscount WOLMER: No doubt that thought has been present to the mind of the Postmaster-General, but a question of that nature involves a very big decision, and I think the Government would have to be satisfied that there was acquiescence on the part of the public in regard to the raising of the telegraph rates before the step could be taken again. The hon. Baronet will remember that the fees were raised two or three years ago.

Mr. AMMON: Is it not a fact that a good deal of this loss has occurred in consequence of the special rates allowed to the Press and to newspapers?

Commander BELLAIRS: Is my Noble Friend aware that the Press rating and betting intelligence is carried on at a loss, and will he remove that subsidy?

Viscount WOLMER: Yes, Sir, it is the case that the Press rates are not remunerative.

Sir F. HALL: Considering that it is unfair to the general taxpayer to have to make up this loss, will he take steps to set this matter right?

Viscount WOLMER: I will convey the view expressed by my hon. and gallant Friend to the Postmaster-General.

Mr. HARRIS: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General not aware that the present very high charges are preventing the public from using the telegraphic service, and will he also consider whether lower charges would not have the effect of bringing in very much
more business and so decreasing the loss?

Mr. J. JONES: Will the Government, at the same time that they are going to stop the miners' subsidy, stop this subsidy to the most dangerous section of the community?

Oral Answers to Questions — HENDON AERODROME.

Sir F. WISE: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will state the cost of the Hendon aerodrome and the acreage?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major Sir Philip Sassoon): The acreage of the aerodrome is approximately 300. For the reasons which were stated in my reply to my hon. Friend on the 10th February last, it is inadvisable at present to state the cost?

Sir F. WISE: When may I put this question down again?

Sir P. SASSOON: Negotiations for the sale of certain portions of the land and buildings not required by the Air Ministry are at present in progress, and until they are concluded it would not be advisable to state the sum.

Oral Answers to Questions — MAIN ROAD DIVERSION (LANGFORD).

Lord ERSKINE: 66.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the owners and occupiers of many houses, shops and premises in the village of Langford, Somerset, have petitioned the Somerset County Council against the proposed diversion of the main road at Langford, on the ground that such diversion will injuriously affect the trade and prosperity of that village; and will he, before sanctioning such diversion, direct that a local inquiry shall be held at which the views of the inhabitants could be expressed.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The improvement which the Somerset County Council are effecting at Langford, with assistance from the Road Fund, forms part of the comprehensive reconstruction of the trunk road between Bristol and Exeter Owing to the narrow and tortuous character of the village street and the
very restricted sight line, the county council considered it advisable to construct a by-pass rather than incur the much heavier outlay involved in re-modelling the old road and demolishing the buildings fronting it. I have concurred in the council's proposal, which will, I believe, conduce to the comfort and convenience of residents in the village. As the contract has already been let, I think my Noble Friend will agree that a local inquiry would serve no useful purpose.

Mr. FENBY: May I ask the Minister of Transport if he has any power to hold a local inquiry in circumstances such as these, or whether it is not a fact that the power lies with the road authority?

Colonel ASHLEY: I do not like to answer legal questions without notice, but. I think I have the power to hold an inquiry if it be applied for.

Mr. FENBY: I will put another question down.

Captain HUDSON: Is it not a fact that any by-pass would take business away from the town?

Colonel ASHLEY: Not necessarily; that must be a matter of opinion.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (ASSISTANT DISTRICT COMMISSIONERS).

Mr. GILLETT: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received a Report of the Commission of Inquiry, presided over by the Chief Justice of Kenya Colony, and appointed to inquire into allegations of pro-native bias made by the chairman of the Settlers' Convention against an assistant district commissioner; and whether, in view of the opinion of the commissioners that the practice of moving assistant district commissioners because of grievances alleged by planters without full investigation will lead to a most unwholesome condition in that branch of the service, and their statement that Mr. Cooke's request for an investigation of the facts is reasonable, he will recommend to the Government of Kenya Colony that such an investigation should be made?

Mr. AMERY: I have read the Commission s Report in the local newspaper. As I understand it, the Commissioners did not definitely conclude that the practice mentioned actually existed, and in the particular case of Mr. Cooke I think that their proceedings and Report constitute the full investigation for which he had asked. I will, however, bring the hon. Member's question to the notice of the Governor.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT LOAN.

Mr. GILLETT: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any statement from the East African Governments of their proposals for the expenditure of the proposed £10,000,000 East African loan?

Mr. AMERY: Statements from all the East African Governments concerned are now under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUGAR.

Mr. FORREST: 30.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether his representatives abroad have forwarded to him any information tending to show the different arrangements now being made by sugar producers and exporters of the countries to sell their commodity on the British market; whether these Reports indicate any sale in this country at a price lower than that in the country of production; and whether he can more especially state what arrangements in this respect exist in Germany?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): No comprehensive reports have been received with regard to selling arrangements by foreign sugar producers. I understand, however, that in Czechoslovakia agreements have been concluded between sugar producers, the effect of which is to secure higher prices for home consumption than for export. As regards the last part of the question, I am informed that arrangements with the same end in view are being made by German producers, but, so far as I am aware, have not yet been completed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

ST. BUDEAUX CAMP, DEVONPORT.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY (for Mr. HORE-BELISHA): 41.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the housing shortage in Devon-port, he has now considered if it would be possible to make use of the St. Budeaux Camp for alleviating the housing congestion in the town, seeing that the structural alteration of this camp could be carried out for this purpose?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): Further examination has now shown that the cost of converting the temporary buildings at St. Budeaux Camp for such a purpose would be prohibitive, and I regret, therefore, that, even if they were not required for naval purposes, the Admiralty are not prepared to recommend such a scheme.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. Gentleman now explain what good purpose is served by keeping seamen in this camp on shore for training purposes?

Mr. DAVIDSON: It is for the same reason which I gave earlier in answer to a supplementary question, namely, that they receive some of their training on shore.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not that against all naval experience all over the world?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I do not think so.

ROSYTH AND PEMBROKE DOCKYARDS (TRANSFERS TO DEVONPORT).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY (for Mr. HORE-BELISHA): 42.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many men of those sent from the closed dockyards of Rosyth and Pembroke to Devon-port are married and how many single men, and how many married men have left their families in the parts from whence they came?

Mr. DAVIDSON: 296 married and 51 unmarried men, including apprentices, have already been transferred; 125 of the married men have left their families at Rosyth and Pembroke Dock.

Mr. PALING: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of these people have got into houses since they were transferred?

Mr. DAVIDSON: No, I cannot say.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY TATTOOS.

Sir F. HALL (for Sir HARRY BRITTAIN): 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the success achieved by the tattoo at the recent British Empire Exhibition and the interest displayed by the public, he would be prepared to consider the suggestion of an Empire tattoo during the coming summer, the proceeds to be devoted to the various Service charities?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to hold a national tattoo in the coming summer; and, if so, where?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I have been asked to reply to these questions. Tattoos will be held at Birmingham on 3rd to 15th May; at Aldershot, 15th to 19th June; at York, 30th June to 3rd July; at Leeds, 8th to 10th July; and at Tidworth, 31st July to 5th August. The dates and places of the other local tattoos, which are being organised by Commands, have not yet been fixed. In London, the joint tattoo of the three Services, better known under the name of the Royal Tournament, will be held from 20th May to 5th June as usual, and the proceeds devoted to Service charities. It will not he possible to organise a tattoo in London in addition to those to which I have referred.

Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that London people are desirous, and have expressed their desire in unmistakable terms, that a tattoo should be held, and will he consider the utilisation of the Crystal Palace, which belongs to the nation, for that purpose?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I hope they will go to the Royal Tournament.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that Empire co-operation is best served by the glorification of military operations?

Mr. R. MORRISON: Would it not be possible to arrange at short notice for a tattoo to take place in East Ham?

Oral Answers to Questions — ESTIMATES COMMITTEE.

Colonel WOODCOCK (for Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE): 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the statement of the Select Committee on Estimates that, under the conditions in which they work at present, they can only examine the Estimates of two or three Departments each year, he will consider the desirability of increasing the size of the Committee and setting up subcommittees, so that the Estimates of each Department can be examined annually?

The PRIME MINISTER: The recommendations of the Estimates Committee, which were published last week, are receiving consideration, but I am not at present able to indicate the views of the Government upon them.

Sir F. WISE: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the old terms of reference will be of no use to this Committee if it is to do really good work?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have said that the matter is receiving consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCHISE AND ELECTORAL LAW.

Mr. FENBY (for Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR): 53.
asked the Prime Minister when the proposed conference to consider alterations in the franchise and electoral law will be called; and whether he will postpone his decision with regard to the substitution of one register a year for two and reduction of the qualifying period until the subject can be discussed at that conference.?

Captain HACKING: I have been asked to reply. I am afraid that on the first point no statement can be made at present, and that the answer to the second point is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR RELIEF, LANARKSHIRE.

Mr. WESTWOOD (for Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM): 61.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he can state the number
of able-bodied persons who have claimed relief from each of the parish councils in the county of Lanark during the first three months of the years 1924, 1925 and 1926?

Mr. F. C. THOMSON (Lord of the Treasury): My hon. and gallant Friend is obtaining the information, which involves the preparation of a special return by the Lanarkshire Parish Councils, and he will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as the particulars are available.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BENEFIT (MEANS CALCULATION).

Mr. MACKINDER (for Mr. EVAN DAVIES): 58.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the pensions of disabled soldiers are taken into consideration by the managers of Employment Exchanges when calculating the income going into the home; and, if so, will he consider the advisability of discontinuing the practice?

Mr. BETTERTON: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies, of which am sending him copies, given to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr. Rose) on this subject on 10th and 31st March.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED, LANARKSHIRE.

Mr. WESTWOOD (for Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM): 59.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons whose claim for unemployment benefit have been rejected in each of the various Labour Exchanges in Lanarkshire, including Glasgow, during the past three months on the ground of their being unable to satisfy the requirements of paragraph 2 of U.I. 503A?

Mr. BETTERTON: As the reply necessarily includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Number of applications for extended benefit during the period 15th December, 1925, to 8th March, 1926, recommended for disallowance by local employment committees in Lanarkshire on the grounds of being unable to satisfy the requirements specified in paragraph 2 of U.I. 503A:


Area.
Not normally insurable.
Insurable employment not likely to be available.
Not reasonable period of insurable employment.
Not making reasonable efforts to secure employment.
Total.


Airdrie
8
—
11
9
28


Bridgeton
114
22
645
120
901


Coat bridge
28
3
30
45
106


Glasgow, Central
103
38
565
665
1,371


Glasgow, S. Side (including Kinning Park).
167
31
1,477
305
1,980


Govan
45
15
270
253
583


Hamilton
39
38
141
77
295


Maryhill
59
13
570
174
816


Motherwell
21
7
19
42
89


Parkhead
40
25
278
86
429


Partick (including Finnieston)
94
33
405
251
783


Rutherglen
7
6
48
13
74


Springburn (including Kirkintilloch).
52
24
425
89
590


Wishaw
15
6
53
29
103


Total—Lanarkshire
792
261
4,937
2,l58
8,148

'The total number of applications considered by these Committees during the period was 72,252.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPORTED BRICKS.

Brigadier - General Sir HENRY CROFT (for Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK): 63.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that bricks of foreign manufacture imported into this country rose from a total value of £18,000 in 1023 to more than £450,000 in 1925; that in the same period tiles imported rose in value from £93,000 to £430,000, cement from £395,000 to £540,000, and slate imports from £1,000 in 1920 to £85,000 in the last quarter alone of 1925; and whether he will take some action to safeguard the position of workers in English brickfields and tile manufactories?

Sir B. CHADWICK: figures quoted by my hon. Friend are, I understand, correct, except that the imports of slates for roofing in 1920 were valued at £46,000, and not at £1,000. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer him to the answer given on 23rd March to the hon. Members for Norwich and St. George's, Westminster, of which I am sending him a copy.

Sir H. CROFT: Does not my hon. Friend think it intolerable that there should be this enormous import of foreign material produced at lower wage levels than in this country while we
have this enormous unemployment, and will he reconsider the whole question?

Mr. HARRIS: Is it not a fact that there is a great shortage of houses in this country and that these bricks are wanted to put into the houses?

Sir B. CHADWICK: The import of bricks is considerable and has been increasing, though relatively it is small compared with our home production, which is about twice what it was before the War.

Sir H. CROFT: In view of the fact that our policy is now to buy British goods, may we not have some indication of Government policy with regard to this question?

Mr. J. JONES: Is it not a fact that we have in this country 6,000,000,000 bricks in stock in the various brickfields, and why cannot we use them up before we go on with this business?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRAFFIC REGULATION BY POLICE.

BLUNDELL (for Major GLYN): d the Secretary of State for the Home Department the total number of officers of the Metropolitan police engaged on point duty and other duties concerned with the regulation and control of traffic;
whether he has information as to the similar numbers engaged in other parts of the country through the reports of the inspectors of constabulary; and, if so, what are the figures?

Captain HACKING: In the Metropolitan Police area the number of men so engaged is about 1,300, though it varies from time to time. I have no corresponding information as regards the county and borough police forces.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I ask what time the Prime Minister proposes to take for the Economy Bill and how he suggests that the time should be distributed?

The PRIME MINISTER: We propose to continue and conclude the Committee stage of the Economy Bill to-morrow, and, if time permit, we shall proceed with the following Bills, which I believe are non-controversial: the Committee stage of the Imperial War Graves Endowment Fund Bill, and the Second Readings of

the Weights and Measures Amendment Bill [Lords] and the Bankruptcy Bill [Lords].

Wednesday: We propose to take the Committee stage of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill as first Order.

Thursday: If there be no Report stage to the Economy Bill, we propose to allocate the whole day to the Third Reading. I hope this arrangement of business will render late sittings unnecessary.

Sir H. CROFT: When is it proposed to take the Law of Property Amendment Bill, which is holding up the whole of the building operations in some parts of the country?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot make a promise as to that for the moment. My hon. and gallant Friend realises that next week will be very fully occupied, but I will look into the matter.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).''— [The Prime Minister.]

The House divided; Ayes, 209; Noes, 97.

Division No. 169.]
AYES.
[3.52 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Grace, John


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Greenwood Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)


Albery, Irving James
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Grotrian, H. Brent


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Clayton, G. C.
Guinness. Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool,W.Derby)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cope, Major William
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Couper, J. B.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Apsley, Lord
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hartington, Marquess of


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Balniel, Lord
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hawke, John Anthony


Barclay-Harvey C. M.
Curzon, Captain viscount
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Betterton, Henry B.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Blundell, F. N.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Dixey, A. C.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)


Brass, Captain W.
Drewe, C.
Hills, Major John Waller


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Cilve
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Briggs, J. Harold
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Briscoe, Richard George
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N).


Bullock, Captain M.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Finburgh, S.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Burman, J. B.
Forrest, W.
Huntingfield, Lord


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Hurd, Percy A.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Ganzoni, Sir John
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. F. S.


Campbell, E. T.
Gates, Percy
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Can'l)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Jacob, A. E.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon, Cuthbert


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Goff, Sir Park
Jephcott, A. R.


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Kidersley, Major G. M.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Murchison, C. K.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir clement
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Knox, Sir Alfred
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Lamb, J. Q.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Nuttall, Ellis
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Oakley, T.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Penny, Frederick George
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Looker, Herbert William
Pilcher, G.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Tinne, J. A.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Preston, William
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Lumley, L. R.
Ramsden, E.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Remnant, Sir James
Wells, S R.


MacIntyre, Ian
Rice, Sir Frederick
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


McLean, Major A.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Macmillan, Captain H.
Ropner, Major L.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Macnaghten, Hon. sir Malcolm
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Salmon, Major, I.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Macquisten, F. A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steal-
Sanders, Sir Robert A,
Wolmer, Viscount


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sandon, Lord
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Malone, Major P. B.
Savery, S. S.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Margesson, Captain D.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Meyer, Sir Frank
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)



Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Skelton, A N.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Major Sir Harry Barnston and


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Smithers, Waldron
Major Hennessy.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grundy, T. W.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Potts, John S.


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Riley, Ben


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, G. H, (Merthyr Tydvil)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Scrymgeour, E.


Barr, J.
Harris, Percy A.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Batey, Joseph
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Briant, Frank
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Broad, F. A.
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromley, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stamford, T. W.


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stephen, Campbell


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kenworthy, Lt-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cove, W. G.
Kenyon, Barnet
Thurtle, E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lowth, T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lunn, William
Viant, S. P.


Dennison, R,
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Duncan, C.
Mackinder, W.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D.(Rhondda)


Fenby, T. D.
March, S.
Westwood, J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Maxton, James
Whiteley, W.


Gillett, George M.
Montague, Frederick
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gosling, Harry
Morris, R. H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm, (Edin., Cent.)
Naylor, T. E.
Windsor, Walter


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Oliver, George Harold
Wright, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Owen, Major G.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Paling, W.



Groves, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Hayes.


Question put, and agreed to.

DIVISIONS.

Mr. THURTLE: I desire to raise the question of the exclusion of my name and that of several of my colleagues from Division List No. 145 on 14th April. On that occasion I passed through the No Division Lobby, and saw my name duly checked by the Division Clerks, as also did my colleagues, and we afterwards dis-
covered that our names were not included in the Division List. The question I wish to put to you is why were our names excluded from that list, and by what manner of means were they excluded?

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member mean that he passed out of the Lobby, and was not counted by the Tellers at the door of the Lobby?

Mr. THURTLE: No, I was not counted at the door of the Lobby.

Mr. SPEAKER: That was owing to my instruction. The persons who vote are those who pass out of the Lobby, and are counted by the Tellers appointed by the House. The list made by the Clerks is only an incidental matter. It has no authority so far as the House goes.

Mr. THURTLE: May I address you, Sir, on this point, as to whether it was under your instructions that the Tellers took the names of those people who did not pass out of the Lobby, because I understand, according to the Report, that you simply instructed the Serjeant-at-Arms to ask the Tellers in the No Lobby to report to the Table, and you did not instruct them to take the names of those who had not passed through the Lobby. May I ask you, therefore, on whose instruction it was that the Tellers took this information?

Mr. SPEAKER: It was on my instructions, certainly. When I was informed that certain persons who had passed the clerks had not actually voted, I conceived it my duty to instruct the clerks, when they knew the persons, and knew that those persons had not actually voted, that their names were not to appear in the records.

Mr. THURTLE: May I submit this further point? It being within the knowledge of the Tellers that there was a certain number of Members in the No Lobby who had their names ticked on the Division List, may I submit that Erskine May supports the contention that those names should be included in the Division List. On page page 359 he says:
Members occasionally remain in the Division Lobby uncounted by the Tellers, and their votes are by mutual agreement included in the Tellers' statement to the, Clerk at the Table.
Assuming that there was not mutual agreement, he goes on to say that, if the Tellers are not made aware that the Member has remained uncounted, the Member may take certain steps. That clearly implies that if the Tellers are made aware that Members have remained uncounted, they should include their names in the Division List.

Mr. SPEAKER: If there has been an accidental omission by the Clerk, it has
always been a matter of courtesy, supposing the two appointed Tellers agreed, that the list should then be corrected.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: In order to elucidate the point, as I understand it, the act of voting takes place when the Member actually passes in front of the Tellers out of the Lobby, and not when the Member passes the desk by the clerks. Might I ask you, then, how a Member who has committed no crime except that of not voting can be suspended?

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot go back on that question, which was dealt with by the House last week.

Mr. MACKINDER: Are we to understand that a precedent is now established, which may be quoted in some future Parliament, that a Member who refuses to pass the Tellers and through the door may be suspended for refusing to come out of the Division Lobby?

Mr. SPEAKER: Again I must not go back on the decision of the House last week. I cannot reopen that question.

Mr. MacDONALD: With great respect., and with no intention of doing anything against your decision, may I ask for your advice, Sir, on this matter? As the incident of last week may rightly or wrongly be quoted as a precedent, could you help us in some way or other to make it clear that that must not be taken as a precedent.

Mr. SPEAKER: All I can say is that I have made a suggestion which I hope will be considered. It may avoid such an incident as occurred last week.

Mr. STEPHEN: May I ask your advice, Sir? Circumstances may be such that Members may be reported to the House when in Committee, as was the case last week. What protection has a Member got in a case like that of the matter being raised? Someone might have been included in the list of names by mistake last week, and might have been suspended. What protection is there for the Member when the Chairman of Ways and Means takes such action as happened last week?

Mr. SPEAKER: That seems to be a hypothetical case. I have heard no suggestion of that on the recent occasion.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is there any method by which the hon. Members who were suspended last week, or their colleagues in this House, can raise the question of their suspension?

Mr. SPEAKER: If there be any suggestion of a mistake, I will deal with it when it is put before me. I cannot say more than that.

Orders of the Day — ECONOMY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) [MONEY] (No. 2).

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for reducing in respect of certain services the charges on public funds and for increasing, by means of the payment into the Exchequer of certain sums and otherwise, the funds available for meeting such charges, and to amend accordingly the Law relating to unemployment insurance and certain other matters and for purposes related or incidental thereto, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of a contribution under the Acts relating to unemployment insurance of such an amount as would be produced if, so far as relates to exempt persons, the rates of weekly contributions on the basis of which the said amount is calculated were the same as respects the part (if any) of the extended period after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, as the rates applicable theretofore "— [King's Recommendation signified].

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): This Resolution, to the superficial reader, may at first sight seem to be somewhat involved and its meaning somewhat obscure, but, as I hope to satisfy the Committee in a moment or two, its meaning is quite simple and its object quite clear. I say at once that the Resolution is necessary owing to an oversight in drafting the Bill in the first instance. I think it better to state that at once. The point is a very short one, but it is rather a technical one. It deals, as far as the amount is concerned, with no more than £28,000 a year, after January, 1928. The Resolution is necessary because the Bill, as it is drafted may involve a charge on the Exchequer in respect of exempted persons should it prove to be the case that the extended period does not come to an end by 1st January, 1928. I do not think I need trouble the Committee with a definition of an exempted person. [HON. MEMBERS; "Yes! "] Quite shortly, exempted persons are those persons who are specified
in Section three of the Act of 1920, and, speaking broadly, they are persons who have a small income of £26 a year or over apart from the amount of wages which they get in their insured employment.
According to the law, the State and their employers pay contributions in respect of such persons at a. lower rats than the normal rate of contributions, but the exempted person does not pay any contribution at all, although, of course, he is entitled to benefit should he fall out of work. Under the Act of 1925 the contributions in respect of such exempted persons are for men 2½d.,for women 2¼for boys 1¼d. and for girls 1⅛d. Under that Act those contributions remain at that rate until January, 1928, or the end of the extended period, whichever is the earlier, and after January, 1928, if the extended period has not come to an end then, the contributions are slightly less. In the case of men they are reduced from2½ to 2d., in the case of women from 22¼d.,to 12¾d., with corresponding reductions for boys and girls.
Under the Bill, as it is drawn, it will be noted that, according to the Second Schedule, the contributions in respect of these exempted persons remain at the higher rate to the end of the extended period, whether that extended period extends beyond January, 1928, or not. Therefore, should it turn out that the extended period extends beyond January, 1928, contributions would still he payable at the higher rate, but, inasmuch as under the Act of 1925 it is possible the contributions will be lower from then until the extended period has come to an end, it is necessary to get this Financial Resolution in order to provide for a possible further charge on the Exchequer after January, 1928, for the whole of the extended period, to cover the difference between the higher and the lower rates. That is a very technical matter, but I have endeavoured, as shortly as I can, to make it clear why the Resolution is necessary. The amount which it is estimated is involved is £28,000 a year after January, 1928, to the end of the extended period.

Mr. KELLY: Would the hon. Gentleman explain to us why he is asking for permission to continue the higher contribution for these exempted persons, when at the same time he is asking to reduce the amount payable by Parliament for other people?

Mr. BETTERTON: Before I answer that question, I ought to correct one slip in my speech. Exempted persons are not entitled to benefit.

Mr. KELLY: Why ask for a higher amount?

Mr. BETTERTON: The answer is really, as I said quite frankly a moment ago, that there was a mistake in drafting the Bill; and, having made that mistake, we thought it only right and fair to the Committee to provide that the State should make up the difference between the higher and the lower rate.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour invariably treats the House to a clear explanation of the subject under discussion, and he has given a clear explanation, though not, I think, a defence of the money resolution. He disarmed criticism by referring to this Resolution as being made necessary because of an oversight. It seems to me that there has been far more than an oversight. As I understand it, there has been a change of policy some time between Wednesday and Friday. On Wednesday evening the Minister of Labour put down an Amendment, which appeared on the Paper on Thursday, to provide for a reduction of the State contribution in respect of exempted persons in 1928. Therefore, un till Wednesday evening, at any rate, it was never intended that this Money Resolution would be submitted. On the contrary, the Government were so certain that they were right about this matter that they put down an Amendment to re-enact what had already been enacted in the Act of 1925. That was the Amendment of the Minister of Labour which appeared on Thursday's Order Paper. Some time on Thursday or Friday this Amendment was taken off the Paper, and during the week-end there has been placed on the Paper this Money Resolution, with the deliberate object of reversing the policy that was contained in the Amendment which had appeared a few days before. That, I submit, is more than an oversight. It is, I say, a deliberate change of policy, for which we have had no adequate explanation from the hon. Gentleman.
I am not surprised that we should be placed in this most unfortunate position. Members will look in vain for any refer-
once whatever in the Memorandum on the Clauses of the Bill to exempted persons, and they will find nothing in the body of the Bill about exempted persons, but, if they search the Schedule and the repeals at the end of the Bill, they will find it hidden away there. It is because they tucked it away so very carefully that they forgot all about it and that the Government have been placed in the position in which they are at the present time. The hon. Gentleman did not deal at length with exempted persons. They are the least important persons who are insured under the Unemployment Insurance Act. They are a very small group of persons. They are persons who are proved to be

" (a) in receipt of any pension or income of the annual value of £26 or upwards, which does not depend on his personal exertions; or
(b) ordinarily and mainly dependent for his livelihood upon some other person; or
(c) ordinarily and mainly dependent for his livelihood on the earnings derived by him from an occupation, employment in which does not make him an employed person within the meaning of this Act."

Those persons, relatively to the great mass of insured persons, are few in number, and they are on the whole better-to-do persons. I suppose we ought to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he has allowed these people to keep their pensions or incomes of the annual value of £26 or upwards and has done nothing more than make a small present to that part of the fund to which their employers contribute. These persons make no contribution. What was the objection of making this provision in the 1920 Act? It was said that if persons of this kind were put outside the Act entirely there would be some inducement on the part of employers of labour to employ them rather than other people because of the contributions. Therefore, in order to put these people more or less on the same footing as other employed persons, the Government said; "We will compel the employer to pay contributions in respect of them." That seemed a very sound proceeding.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who so earnestly desires to save money, might have employed the device of increasing the employers' contributions and not increasing the State charge. Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider
that possible alternative in order to relieve the Exchequer of a subsequent charge of £28,000 a year? For the great mass of the 12,000,000 insured persons the State's contribution is to be decreased, and it is not only illogical but it seems clearly unjust that the State, having determined to diminish its contribution in respect of the mass of the insured workers, should, because of the muddle into which they have got over this Bill, single out these people and say that their pension or income of the annual value of £26 and upwards is not going to be in any way prejudiced, their dignity is not to he impugned or their self-respect reduced. The State, in fact, is going to make a greater grant on their behalf than it would have made ordinarily, and at the same time the Government are going to reduce the contributions in respect of the great mass of insured persons.
If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour had come to the Committee with a Money Resolution to increase the State contribution in respect of all insured persons, he would have had the support of everyone on these benches, but this only illustrates the extraordinary muddle of this Bill. Here we have an attempt to save so many millions of pounds on unemployment and health insurance and then, when the Bill is dragging its weary way through the Committee stage, we are treated to a Financial Resolution asking that the State charge in respect of certain people shall be increased should occasion arise at the end of the deficiency period. The Committee is entitled to a fuller justification of the Government's proposal and a much fuller explanation as to why the Amendment which appeared on the Order Paper last. Thursday has been taken off; why that policy has been changed, and why we have in its place the proposal embodied in this Resolution. I hope the Government, as we desire to help them in this work of economy, will tell the Committee why it has changed its policy.

Mr. HARRIS: I do not think the Committee has been treated with proper courtesy by the Government. Night after night last week we sat up in order to facilitate the passage of this Bill. This is not an ordinary Bill. It might have been brought in much earlier, for the
Government have had plenty of time to think out their plans. During the earlier part of the Session they could have thought out its details. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour is very courteous and very industrious, but at the moment there is no Minister on the Front Bench. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is not present, much less the Chancellor of the Exchequer. After all the efforts of the Committee, it is now found that the Bill is not water-tight, and owing to the incapacity of the Government we are to be asked to vote away Government money at a time when national economy is needed. During the early hours of one morning last week we were told that it was absolutely essential this Fund should be robbed of the full Government grant and the employers made to pay an extra amount. Now, at this late stage, after all this debate, we are told that the Government have not thought out their financial policy and owing to their blundering and incapacity we are asked to pass this Financial Resolution.
I hope some of the economists on the other side who claim to be the guardians of financial purity will protest against this proceeding. I should like to know whether the Treasury was consulted. Who is responsible The Parliamentary. Secretary to the Ministry of Labour is the personification of innocence. He is a high-minded man, and that is perhaps why he is selected to do the dirty work of the Government. There is an empty Front Bench. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury is there to support the Parliamentary Secretary, but otherwise he is left isolated on the Front Bench. The proper thing to do is to recommit the Bill. There is no reason, no justification, for this differentiation between contributors to the Fund. The more you study this Bill the more incomprehensible, illogical and unsatisfactory' it becomes. If we had had a fortnight in which to consider it instead of a week, it would never have passed in its present form.

Mr. KELLY: I hope we shall have a very clear explanation why the Government have suddenly taken to their heart people with an assured income of £26 a year. It is a strange proceeding that the Government should harden their heart against those who require benefit
and at the same time be prepared to pay greater sums to those who do not receive benefits at all. It shows how badly the Government have been advised. They are not quite sure as to whether these exempted persons receive unemployment benefit when they are out of work. I think we should have some explanation why the Treasury, which has been taking as much as it can— the word "robbery" is a very mild one for their conduct— during the passage of this Bill now find that they can afford to part with £28,000 to people who are not to receive unemployment benefit at al Why are they paying this £28,000 into the Fund and at the same time taking away from all other insured persons, unjustifiably, contributions which may keep many who are unemployed from starvation?

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I do not know, Mr. Chairman, whether the Amendment I have handed to you in manuscript is in Order or not?

The CHAIRMAN: The terms of the Resolution for which the King's recommendation is signified will not cover the Amendment of the hon. Member.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am much obliged. It is hardly fair to expect you to give any other ruling at such short notice. But that brings me again to the point that it is very inconvenient for Members of the Committee, when dealing with a highly technical subject, to have this Resolution placed on the Order Paper over the week-end and have only a few minutes in which to consider its full import and effect. I believe there is good ground for the Amendment which I handed in, but I do not complain of your ruling. I put it to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour that it is unfair to the Committee to come along with a Money Resolution at this stage of the Bill without any separate actuarial report in regard to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. This is not the first time we have had to complain of the reluctance of the Government to supply the Committee with full actuarial details on matters on which they are asked to vote. Last year, when we were considering the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Pensions and the changes it proposed, and its relation to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, it was only after a great deal of
pressure that we were able to get the Government to submit to the Committee a report of the actuary upon the actuarial position of the Fund. In respect of the general Clauses of this Bill and in respect of this Resolution we have had no information as to the actuarial position. There are statements in the White Paper, but without any general explanation of the actuarial position.
In my opinion we ought to oppose this Money Resolution because it does not go far enough. The Government ought to submit a Money Resolution which would provide that at no time should the debt on the Fund exceed the figure of December, 1925, and that the Government should be prepared at any time to make up any extra deficiency that may occur. It is true this is a. comparatively small sum, £28,000, but we on this side of the Committee are unhappy about the actuarial position. There have been so many different statements made on this subject. Only last week in the early hours of the morning we were given different figures as to the numbers of unemployed and their relation to the deficit. The Parliamentary Secretary, on 23rd February, in answer to a question in the House, said that when the figure on the live register was 1,070,000 the income and expenditure would balance, but in the beginning of March he also said that the actual weekly expenditure of the Fund was £900,000 and the income £825,000. Therefore, only some six or seven weeks ago there was a weekly deficit of something like £75,000. That raises a very serious question, and it becomes even more serious when you look at the White Paper which has been issued and find that in the course of a few weeks the figure given on the 23rd February has been changed, and instead of requiring 1,070,000 persons on the live register it must be reduced to 1,030,000 for the Fund to balance.

The CHAIRMAN: This Money Resolution is to provide for what might occur after next year.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am trying to put before the Committee the position actuarially of the Fund, and it is so serious that I think the Money Resolution should be extended. I hope I shall he allowed to develop that argument. There has been much discrepancy in the
figures given to the Committee. We submit that there is every indication, with the effect of the Clauses of the Bill for reducing the Government contribution in other respects, that there will be a serious deficit on the Actuarial Fund. The Parliamentary Secretary comes to the Committee with a proposal that we shall cover him for a charge of £28,000 after 1st January, 1928. He should also ask the Committee to cover any additional deficit over the deficit in 1925 or such other date as the Government like to submit. I have not consulted my hon. Friends, but I would be prepared to divide the Committee against this Resolution, because of the failure of the Government to produce proposals of the kind I have indicated.
There is another point which has been touched upon briefly already. These exempted persons who pay no contributions must have contributions paid for them by the employers, and the State also makes a contribution. The actual contribution made by the employer in respect of the exempted person is very much lower than in the case of the person who is not exempt; the employer does not pay at anything like the same rate. Surely that emphasises very strongly the point made by my hon. Friend, that if there was any ground at all for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to raid the Unemployment Insurance Fund, as he has been doing in the name of economy, here was a field which he could very well have explored and have got considerable advantage to the Exchequer therefrom. The Parliamentary Secretary will recollect that in the drafting of the original scheme of Unemployment Insurance it was desired that employers should not be encouraged to employ at a cheaper rate than that at which they could get an ordinary insured person, those who had some income or special provision made for them and who were thereby exempt from the Fund. Therefore, a certain charge was put on the employer In the present state of unemployment, surely prima facie it, it would have been a good plan to have increased very largely the present low contributions, in respect of exempted employés, on the part of the employer, and to have provided funds for the Exchequer in that way rather than by reducing still further the contribution from the Government in that respect.
This is further evidence—I will not say of the incapacity of the Government, because that has become almost a by-word, but evidence of the very great lack of consideration which the Government give to their Measures before submitting them to the House. I should have thought that if they had given more consideration to this proposal, with a Chancellor of the Exchequer having predatory designs on all kinds of funds, ho would not have missed any opportunity of getting some funds from the employers who are paying so low a rate in respect of exempted persons. I very much regret that it is not possible at this stage to move the manuscript Amendment to which I have referred. I know what the Government's proposal will mean to necessitous areas, if some Amendment of the kind is not brought forward. I know what it will mean to Sheffield.

The CHAIRMAN: I have every sympathy with that aspect of the subject, but it will not be in order to work in such a reference.

Mr. ALEXANDER: It is perfectly true, Mr. Chairman, that you and I are keenly interested in that city. Although it may be difficult to bring the subject into order on this Resolution, it may be in order for me to say that, unless the Government make adequate provisions for meeting the increasing deficit on the fund, it is likely to be a serious matter for those areas in which there is, and is likely to be, heavy unemployment. Unless we get a more satisfactory explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary, I do not think we ought to pass this Resolution.

Mr. BETTERTON: I confess that I am a little disappointed with the reception that this Resolution has had, because it is a Resolution which proposes actually to increase the amount which the State will pay into the Fund after January, 1928. Instead of the proposal being received with expressions of gratitude, there have been certain criticisms, not all of them very relevant to the Resolution, but criticisms which seemed to express the wish that we had moved an Amendment such as has been mentioned, which would have caused a loss of £28,000 to the funds instead of adding that amount to them. There was one point raised, with regard to the alleged discrepancy in my answers to questions some time ago, as to the balancing of
the fund with the respective figures of 1,070,000 and 1,030,000. The answer is that in one case the Treasury contribution is 6¾d., and in the other case it is 6d.

Mr. ALEXANDER: You take 40,000 off the register?

\Mr. BETTERTON: No.

The CHAIRMAN: It would not be in order to pursue that point.

Mr. BETTERTON: I am not sure that the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) was not under a misapprehension as to the amount which the employer and the State respectively pay in respect of exempted persons. It is true that the State pays very much less, but the employer pays the same, and, of course, the insured person pays nothing. I need not take up the time of the Committee longer, but I ask the Committee to accept this offer of £28,000 to the Fund.

Mr. SNOWDEN: There appears to be a discrepancy between what the Parliamentary Secretary has just said and what he said in his opening speech. I understood him then to say that the employer in the case of the exempted person paid only 2½d. a week. Now he says that the employer pays the same for an exempt person as for a person not exempt.

Mr. BETTERTON: It is the State that pays the 2½d. The employer pays the same for the exempt person as for the non-exempt person.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not know whether or not a point which I wish to raise is appropriate at this stage, but I submit that the proposal is outside the Title of the Bill, which is:
To make provision for reducing in respect of certain services the charges on public funds and for increasing, by means of the payment into the Exchequer of certain sums and otherwise, the funds available for meeting such charges, and to amend accordingly the law relating to national health insurance, unemployment insurance, the registration of electors and the holding of elections education, bankruptcy and companies winding-up fees and certain other fees, and postmarks, and for -purposes related or incidental to the platters aforesaid.
There is nothing whatever in the title which would permit a proposal to be included for increasing the contribution from the Exchequer.

The CHAIRMAN: That would be a very proper point upon which to rule on the Second Schedule. At present we are engaged on a Resolution which is submitted to the Committee for the first time, and it is an enabling and not an enacting Resolution, might be a foundation for a separate Bill of its own. Therefore, I think it is not out of order to proceed on the present occasion.

Mr. ALEXANDER: The Parliamentary Secretary did not tell us why we have not been furnished with an actuarial report. We did not have such a report for the unemployment Clauses of the Economy Bill. We had similar difficulty in getting an actuarial report last year, and I had then to move the adjournment of the Committee.

Mr. BETTERTON: As the money involved is £28,000 a year only on a, turnover of many millions, and as we are satisfied from the best inquiries that we can make that it fairly represents the amount of the charge upon the Exchequer, we have stated so in the White Paper which was issued.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — ECONOMY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.

Considered in Committee [Progress, 15th April].

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 10.— (Amendment of Ballot Act, 1872, as to division of register at polling station, 35 and 36 Vict., c. 33.)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: On a point of Order. The hon. and gallant Member for Stirling (Commander Fanshawe) rose to move an Amendment standing in his name on the Paper, to omit the Clause. Several of us on this side who wish to speak remained in our seats thinking that the hon. and gallant Member would be called.

The CHAIRMAN: There can be no Amendment to leave out a Clause, and no precedence is obtained by hon. Members
who put their names on the Paper to such an Amendment. It is quite unnecessary on the Committee stage to put down an Amendment to leave out a Clause. The Question is put from the Chair, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and on that Members can speak and vote.

Sir H. SLESSER: The hon. and gallant Member rose to speak, and because of that the rest of us remained seated.

The CHAIRMAN: If that be so, there has been a mistake. I did not observe the hon. and gallant Member.

Commander FANSHAWE: I would like to give the reasons for which we wish Clause 10 to he left out of this Bill. In the first place, we object because Clause 10 interferes with no less than three Acts of Parliament— the Ballot Act, of 1872, the Representation of the People Act, 1898, and the Representation of the People Act, No. 2, of 1920. We think it is a very dangerous thing in a Bill of this short, dealing with all kinds of subjects, to interfere with Acts of Parliament that have gone through all the machinery of this House and have been duly passed. The Prime Minister last year promised that we should have a Speaker's Conference to consider the great question of franchise to women, and I also understood him to say the election law and redistribution of seats and the various anomalies, I believe he said, which exist to-day in our election laws. Surely, after the Speaker's Conference reports to this House— it will be a conference of all parties and, therefore, it will be an agreed Measure which will be presented to the House— obviously that will be the time to review, and, if necessary, amend the Ballot Act, 1872, and the other two Acts I have mentioned.
Our second reason for objecting to Clause 10 is that it may remove some of the safeguards which exist to-day against malpractices at the poll. If by keeping Clause 10 in the Bill we are going in any way to jeopardise any of the safeguards which exist at present, I personally think that it is not worth it. What is the economy going to be? Who can say. What Member of this Committee, what permanent official can
say, what economy is to be obtained by keeping this Clause in the Bill? On the contrary, by Sub-section (2) of Clause 10, it is extremely likely that, instead of effecting economy, we shall be actually spending more money at elections. I believe that in the great search for economy, the General Elections held during the last five or six years have come under review. During that time there have been many General Elections and everyone, I believe, in this Committee on both sides, hopes that we shall not have in our parliamentary history elections following each other with such great rapidity as we had during that time. I am not saying this for party purposes; I think we are all agreed on that, for obvious reasons. I do not think, however, that the expenditure on elections during the last five or six years is a true test in any way. I ask that the Government will consent to leave out Clause 10 for those two reasons which I have attempted to submit to the Committee this afternoon. They are, first that the Clause would interfere with three Acts of Parliament, and, secondly, that there is a possibility of removing some of the safeguards which exist against malpractices at the poll. I submit that no economy would be effected and that perhaps extra cost will he involved.

Lieut--Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITE: I rise to support my hon. and gallant Friend in appealing to the Government to consider whether they will not omit this Clause from the Bill, My hon. and gallant Friend has covered the ground very well, but he did not mention, what I believe to be the fact, that all the alterations made in the Ballot Act, 1872, have always been made in a Bill dealing with franchise matters. Therefore, I think this proposal is a departure from precedent which we should not encourage. As my hon. and gallant Friend has said, this proposal is included in an Economy Bill, but we are quite unable to find out what economy it would effect. On the other hand, we can see a certainty of increased expenditure in some directions. If Sub-section (2) stand part of the. Clause, there will be extra presiding officers and poll clerks to pay. The whole matter of the franchise law requires to be looked into. The Ballot Act, 1872, was passed at a time— I have
not looked up figures— when the electorate was only about one-eighth of what it is at the present moment, and we must bring the electoral law and the Ballot Act into line with the vastly increased electorate which we have at the present time.

Sir H. SLESSER: This question is not a party question at all. We are equally concerned in seeing that the machinery of representative government works properly. I wish to add, if I may, my appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider seriously whether the Clause should not be removed from the Bill. I am rather interested to hear hon. Members opposite saying—I think with perfect justification— that this is an entirely unsuitable subject for legislation in an Economy Bill. I used the same argument on Thursday or Friday morning with regard to the question of a double register. I said that was a matter for the Speaker's Conference. I do not know if the two hon. Members opposite voted for leaving out Clause 9 on which my Amendment arose.

Commander FANSHAWE: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman excuse me interrupting him? There is an economy, I believe, possible under the single-register system of about £250,000 per annum. One of our chief reasons for objecting to Clause 10, as a Measure of so-called economy, is that it will not even effect an annual economy. It may be a periodical economy Out, in our opinion, it is a periodical adding to the expenditure.

Sir H. SLESSER: I was dealing with the other argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman which was not specifically related to economy. This is a matter affecting the franchise law, and the Prime Minister stated that a conference was to be held to consider the election law, registration, representation and all matters cognate. I was venturing to point out that that argument was as strong against Clause 9 as it is against Clause 10, but we are now discussing Clause 10, and I wish to support the suggestion which has been made that the law dealing with this matter should be left as it is to-day. I do not know if there will be any economy in this change or not. I do not think it is very material, because in any case it will be so small
that it cannot affect the issue. But there is in this Clause a very significant and, if I may say so, a very sinister proviso. The Clause, after stating that
at any election to which the Ballot Act applies the Returning Officer may direct that the register or the part of the register containing the names of electors allotted to vote at a polling station shall be divided for the purpose of making separate issues of ballot papers to the electors,
has this very sinister proviso:
Provided that the Returning Officer, before giving any such direction, shall be satisfied that if any such division of the register is made the proper conduct of the election will not be prejudiced.
With every respect to returning officers, this Clause seems to assume that in certain cases the proper conduct of the election will be prejudiced, because it says that it is only where that official is satisfied that there is no prejudice to the election that the Clause is to operate. Therefore, the House is dealing with a fundamental question of the franchise and the arrangements for elections, and it is asked to give the authority to decide whether this Clause shall or shall not operate ill particular cases to returning officers. We know in in what way returning officers are appointed, but to add this additional power that a returning officer shall be the person to decide whether an Election will be prejudiced or not by the division of the register does seem rather an absurd thing to incorporate in this Bill.
Surely it is for this House to decide whether any new method of dealing with the register is to be considered, and surely it would be far better to leave matters as they are. It is strange that we on this side of the House are trying to persuade the Members of the Conservative party to leave matters as they are. They seem to have, an itch for change and especially for changing matters affecting the constitution. I do not say they are so much interested in attacking financial interests and effecting changes so far as they are concerned, but they seem to he very eager to make constitutional changes. This, I submit is an excellent opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to show his true Conservatism by leaving matters exactly as they are. I appeal to him to leave the present election law as it is, until at any rate a Royal Commission or a Conference has gone into the whole matter and con-
sidered all the different questions of franchise in relation to one another, and not to bring in the question by a side wind in the middle of a Bill of this character.

Mr. A. R. KENNEDY: I desire to associate myself with the objections which have been taken to this Clause. It seems to me that if one looks behind the alteration proposed to be made, the desire to make the alteration arises from this. It is desired, for some reason which I do not appreciate, to reduce the number of presiding officers at elections. It is stated that an economy of some thousands of pounds may be made by that change. It is said that in some northern towns the system which it is proposed to introduce has been adopted—that instead of having a presiding officer in each polling place, there is to be a presiding officer at a station and a number of clerks in responsible charge of the different polling places. It is not stated in which northern towns this practice has been adopted. I have made inquiries of a very experienced returning officer in a northern town of some importance, and the reply which he sends me is that he is aware that in a few constituencies there is a policy of having only one presiding officer for every polling station, but that that policy has never found favour with him except in very exceptional circumstances. He says:
I have always considered that difficulties may arise, particularly during the last hour and a-half at the polling station when the great majority of voters attend. At this time of day it is essential that the progress of voting should not be delayed, and there is a danger that if several stations were order the charge of one presiding officer he may be engaged in exercising the powers entrusted to him alone at one station when his services might be required at another station.
5.0 P.M.
There is great force in the observation with regard to the position of things which would prevail, certainly in the urban areas, in the last one or two hours, when there is a constant stream of voters and misconduct or possibly disorderly scenes might take place unless voters are taken rapidly and passed through the station. I look with great misgiving on the putting into force of any such idea as dispensing with presiding officers adequate in number to discharge the duties they hold. The presiding officer has several duties to
perform which may at any time make him concentrate his attention to a particular place. He has not only the responsible duty of keeping order in the place, but of marking the votes of illiterate persons —of whom there are still some—of blind persons, and persons who for one reason or another are unable themselves to mark their papers. In addition to that, he has the sole duty of putting the statutory question to be put in certain cases, and taking down the answers, and of also making up the voters' lists. Any one of these duties he may be called upon to perform at any moment. The presence-of the presiding officer may be required at more than one place at the same time to fulfil these duties, and he is more likely to be required in crowded areas. It is a retrograde Measure to propose to restrict the number of presiding officers at this stage, and those who know the services rendered by presiding officers at elections will realise the importance of not tampering lightly with the safeguards which at present exist.

Captain W. SHAW: I wish to associate myself with the remarks made in favour of the deletion of this Clause because I think it is important that it should be deleted. It is giving a very great power to the returning officer to decide whether there shall be more than one polling station for one district. I think that decision should not rest with one man. After all, it is the political parties who are concerned in it, and therefore, if there is going to be any decision as to whether a polling station shall be split up and extra expense thereby incurred, it should rest in the hands of the parties and should be left, in my judgment, to a committee formed amongst the three political parties. Again, I would like to add, it is a question of extra expense. All candidates know the tremendous expense to which we are all put when undertaking to run as candidates, and undoubtedly it is going to add very materially to the expenses of every candidate if it is going to be left entirely in the hands of the presiding officer as to whether a polling station shall be split into two or not. We all know what these expenses mean. They run from anything between 2d. and 5d. per elector. In boroughs it is cheaper, and probably comes out at about 2d., but in many parts of the country it runs up to 5d. You are going to add to
these expenses by this Clause if it is going to stand, and I do ask the Government seriously to consider the matter and to allow the deletion of the Clause. After all, this is an Economy Bill, and it would be only a waste of money for candidates.

Mr. MORRIS: As I understand it, the Government hope by this Clause to effect an economy by reducing the number of presiding officers. They hope to effect a saving of an amount not stated but which it. is suggested may be sonic thousands of pounds. As stated in the explanatory memorandum, in each ease a larger number of electors can be allotted to each polling station, and fewer presiding officers are required. It is trite that the Clause makes provision for dividing the register, but I cannot see—and I should like to know what the position is—what authority the Clause gives to reduce the number of presiding officers at all. There is no suggestion in the Clause of any power to reduce the number, and presumably it would multiply the polling stations and the number of presiding officers. On the other hand, if the Clause is to be effective, does it mean that the presiding officers are reduced, and the number of polling stations are reduced? If so, that is seriously going to affect the rural areas. What is necessary there is a multiplication. In some rural areas voters have to come seven, eight or nine miles to the nearest polling station, and it would he a very serious thing from the rural area point of view that anything of this kind should be done.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I have often been sorry that I was Home Secretary, but never more sorry than this afternoon. There have been volleys from the right, volleys from the left, and volleys from in front, and no one seems to have a kind word for this Clause. May I mention the genesis of the Clause? It is a genuine proposal to attempt to improve the electoral machinery of the country, and it was thought—so careful is the Conservative Government in dealing with small sums of money—that we should be able to save a couple of thousands a year of unnecessary expenditure.
With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member who has just spoken, there would be, of course, a reduction in the number of polling stations. As regards the large towns, about which I have been asked, I think in Blackburn, Leeds, and Croydon the scheme has been adopted of grouping together polling stations in one building and putting them under one presiding officer instead of having three polling stations in one room, Like some other hon. and learned Gentlemen I have often been a presiding officer—I was glad to get the job in my younger days—and there were three or four polling stations in one room. The idea has been to put one presiding officer in charge of three polling stations, and divide up the register in that respect. Quite naturally I do not want to go against the feeling of the House, lint the position is that this Clause was submitted to and approved by the central organisation of each of the three parties, of my own party, the Liberal party, and I think, the Labour party. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is the information given to me. I certainly thought it was so. I do not think we should have been likely to include a Clause dealing with alterations in the electoral law, even of this small character, without consulting hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Sir H. SLESSER: Certainly the last. Clause, Clause 9, was not submitted, and perhaps, therefore, the assumption is sound that Clause 10 was also not submitted.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. and learned Gentleman must not always assume things of that kind. If he knows as a matter of fact it was not submitted, I will withdraw what I am saying. My information was that the two Clauses, Clauses 10 and 11, which are purely machinery—and certainly Clause 11—were submitted. However, I have been very much impressed by the arguments used against this Clause, and nobody has a good word for it. In the circumstances, what I propose is to get in consultation with the representatives of the three party organisations—and certainly with regard to Clause 11 I know that consultation has taken place—and I should he prepared if those organisations agree, as they probably may agree, that these two Clauses are not wanted, I will arrange
for their deletion to be ruled in another place. I think that that may meet the views of all hon. Members.

Commander FANSHAWE: After hearing the statement of the Home Secretary, I beg leave to ask permission to withdraw my opposition.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: It is now apparent that the Government have for some time been a little uncertain as to whether this Clause would get any real support in the House, and for my part it seems to be rather curious to leave a Clause in the Bill all this time and then when it comes to this stage of Committee to give an undertaking to the people con-

cerned that it will be deleted in another place. I am not blaming the right hon. Gentleman especially for this—probably it is a question of consultation with the people responsible for the business of the House. It probably means that the Amendment will very conveniently avoid for the Government the possibility of leaving a Report stage on the Economy Bill; but it must not be thought by Members on the Government side that we are not aware of, and see clearly through, their game.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes. 210; Noes, 109.

Division No. 170.]
AYES.
[5.13 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Drewe, C.
Hurd, Percy A.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. F. S.


Albery, Irving James
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Alexander. E. E. (Leyton)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Alien, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Jephcott, A. R.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Fairfax, Captain J, G.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Apsley, Lord
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover
Finburgh, S.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Forrest, W.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Lamb, J. Q.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Frece, Sir Walter de
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Gates, Percy
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)


Bennett, A. J.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Looker, Herbert William


Betterton, Henry B.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Blundell, F. N.
Goff, Sir Park
Luce, Major-Gen.Sir Richard Harman


Brass, Captain W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Lumley, L. R.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Grace, John
MacAndrew. Major Charles Glen


Briggs, J. Harold
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Macdonald, R (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Briscoe, Richard George
Greene, W. P. Crawford
MacIntyre, Ian


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn.Sir H.(W'th's'w, E)
McLean, Major A.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Macmillan, Captain H.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Macquisten, F. A.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Bullock, Captain M.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Burman, J. B.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Malone, Major P. B.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Harvey. Majors. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Haslam, Henry C.
Margesson, Captain D.


Campbell, E. T.
Hawke, John Anthony
Meller, R. J.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Merriman, F. B.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Meyer, Sir Frank


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Mitchell, Sir W Lane (Streatham)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Clayton, G. C.
Hills, Major John Waller
Murchison, C. K.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hoare, Lt-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Cope, Major William
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Nuttall, Ellis


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Oakley, T.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Penny, Frederick George


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng, Universities)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Preston, William


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N).
Ramsden, E.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper


Dawson, Sir Philip
Huntingfield, Lord
Remnant, Sir James


Rentoul, G. S.
Stanley, Cot. Hon. G.F. (Will'sden, E.)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Rice, Sir Frederick
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Watts, Dr. T.


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y. Ch'ts'y)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Wells, S. R.


Ropner, Major L.
Steel, Major Samuel Strung
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Strickland, Sir Gerald
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Salmon. Major I.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Windsor-dive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Womersley, W. J.


Sandon, Lord
Tasker, Major R. Inigo
Wood, E. (Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Savery, S. S.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Shaw, Capt. W, W. (Willts, Westb'y)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)
Wood. Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Slmms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Skelton, A. N.
Tinne, J. A.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Wallace, Captain D. E.



Smithers, Waldron
Ward, Lt,-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Somerville, A A. (Windsor)
Warner, Brigadier-General W, W.
Major Hennessy and Captain




Bowyer.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, F. (York, W. R.. Normanton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Scrymgeour, E.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Harris, Percy A.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barnes, A.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Barr, J.
Hayes, John Henry
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Briant, Frank
Hirst, G. H.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Broad, F. A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Stamford, T. W.


Bromley, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Hudderfield)
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sutton, J. E.


Cape, Thomas
Kelly, W. T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Charleton, H C.
Kennedy, T.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Cluse, W. S.
Kenyon, Barnet
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lee, F.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cove, W. G.
Lowth, T.
Thurtle, E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Mackinder, W.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dennison, R.
March, S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhonddn)


Duncan, C.
Maxton, James
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Montague, Frederick
Westwood, J.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Morris, R. H.
Whiteley, W.


Fenby, T. D.
Morrison, B. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wroxham)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gosling, Harry
Paling, W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, Walter


Greenall, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wright, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Potts, John s.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grenfell, D. H. (Glamorgan)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Riley, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE NOES —


Groves, T.
Ritson, J.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Grundy, T. W.
Rose, Frank H.
Warne.

CLAUSE 11.—(Amendment as to stamping of ballot papers with official mark.)

Sir H. SLESSER: I beg to move, in page 9, line 9, to leave out the words "stamped or."
Clause 11 seeks to alter the law in regard to official marks on ballot papers, and I understand the Home Secretary is even more rigid in regard to Clause 11 than he was on Clause 10. Yet I have an objection, which I think many hon. Members share, to allowing another place to direct the ultimate form of a Bill dealing with the franchise. We think that if alterations are to be made in the franchise laws, and are to be resisted, the house of Commons is the proper
place for such discussion, and therefore I move this Amendment in spite of the final words of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. What is the proposal for which Clause II stands and to which my Amendment is directed? The present law is that an official mark must be stamped on every ballot paper immediately before the paper is given to the voter. Even that system. I admit, has proved in the past unsatisfactory. Those of us who have had the fortune-or misfortune, to be engaged in Election petitions know how much time is taken up at those petitions in discussing whether or not some curious crease which can be discovered in a ballot paper with a magnifying glass when it is held at a
certain angle to the light, is an official mark. I remember in the North-East Derbyshire Election petition the learned Judges were compelled to strain their necks considerably in holding up to the light one paper after another while counsel on one side sought to persuade them that a certain indentation was the official mark while counsel on the other side endeavoured to persuade them that it was not.
The official mark at present is not satisfactory if several papers are put into the stamping machine at the same time. It was quite clear, from the case I have mentioned, that it is a habit during the pressure of the last hours of polling for the clerk to put several papers into the stamping machine at once. The lower papers are not properly stamped at all in such cases and, as a result, in every election a number of papers are doubtful in this respect. The proposal of the Government is to allow the stamping—they do not define whether it is to be by a punch or by a machine—to be done prior to the polling, which must mean that it will be done before the polling station has been opened. It means that before the voter asks for his voting paper the official mark will have been stamped on the ballot papers in bulk. If there is a danger now that when the voter asks for his ballot paper that it will not be properly stamped as handed to him, how much greater is the risk that it will not be properly stamped if the stamping is to take place when there is no one there to see that it is properly done. At present the voter has a certain interest in seeing that the stamp is properly affixed to the paper when he asks for it, but if it is to be done in some back room, possibly by some unskilled clerk, then the chance of papers not being properly marked is immensely increased. Naturally, under the present system, an official, if he understands his duty, looks at the mark to see if it is properly made when he hands out the paper, but if the stamp is to be put on all the papers, as T say, in some hack room before the polling opens, the officer in charge will naturally assume that all the papers are in order, and that all he has to do is to hand them out, while the voter will no longer expect to see his paper stamped in his presence. In that respect the risk
of papers being issued unmarked will be increased.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to leave out the words "stamped or," but he now appears to be arguing in regard to the entire Clause.

Sir H. SLESSER: I do not resent the interruption, and if I am not making myself clear the fault is mine. I am saying that, as the law stands, stamping sometimes leads to difficulty owing to the mark not appearing on the paper. I am pointing out that the proposal to stamp prior to the polling, will increase the risk of the mark not being properly affixed, and, therefore, I move to omit the power to stamp prior to the polling, but would leave the Government with the power to print prior to the polling. I was pointing out what the difficulties are. The Government proposal is very curious. They do not pledge themselves, on the one hand, to print the official mark, nor, on the other hand, do they pledge themselves to stamp the official mark. They seem to have hesitated between two entirely different methods, and they seek power whereby
the returning officer shall pause the ballot papers to be stamped or printed.
Who is to decide whether they are to be stamped or printed? Is that to be decided by the Home Office or is it to be in the discretion of the returning officer? This point is not made clear, and, in the first instance, we want from the Government a clear statement on this question. If they want to alter the existing law which method do they think the better method? May I point out, in passing, that the real effect of printing would be to abolish altogether the official mark as we now understand it. It might be that certain precautions against forgery could he taken in the printing, as in the case of Treasury notes, but if that is to be the Government option, then there is no particular reason for continuing the system of stamping, whereas, if they prefer the system of stamping as it exists to-day, then there is no particular reason for the provision as to printing. I observe that another hon. Member has an Amendment on the Paper with an intention which is directly opposite to mine. He wishes to leave out the words "or printed." I do not think that is the hon.
Member's fault or my fault. It is the fault, of the Government who proposed this change in such an ambiguous way.
This is a serious matter because the result of an election may depend, and results of elections have depended, on the mere chance of whether or not a returning officer's assistant has pressed the mark on to a ballot paper with sufficient force. I do not know if there are any hon. Members who believe in that form of democracy which was popular among the early Greeks of leaving the selection of candidates to lot or chance. If we adopt that view a good deal could be said in favour of leaving the election of "Members of this House to the chance of the returning officer's pressure on a particular ballot paper. Perhaps there is a good deal to be said for returning Members by lot or chance, but our system assumes that people direct their intelligence and will to voting for candidates, and under our system there is nothing to be said for depriving of his vote a man who marks his paper clearly, properly, unambiguously, and with no intention to deceive, merely because some third party has failed to apply sufficient pressure in stamping the ballot paper. That seems to me a most undesirable thing.
I put it that the chance of ballot papers not being properly marked is increased if the stamping is not done in the presence of the voter. We had the case of an election which I mentioned, where a question arose when there was a majority, I think, of five, and you got about 100 papers in dispute, merely on account of the absence of an official mark. You had a scrutiny of perhaps 20,000 papers, lasting for several weeks, you had a case in the. Courts, and you got a final expenditure of £5,000 or £6,000, which, though possibly not wholly unpalatable to the counsel, is not a thing which ought to be encouraged. Anything which tends to increase the risk of these official marks failing in their object ought to be opposed by this Committee, and, therefore, this is not a party matter at all.
May I say, on this point, if I am not out of order, that, as was indicated on the last Amendment, the whole thing might properly be considered by a Conference dealing with election matters, but if the Government insist on proceeding with this Clause, I say that the risk is much greater
in the case of stamping than in the case of printing, and if we must have the Clause at all, I think it would be better to confine it to printing in such a way as to make forgeries practically impossible, and abandon altogether the old idea of stamping the paper, which was, as I think, consistent with the notion that the paper would come in a virgin state to the polling station and receive its imprint when the voter was actually prepared to take his responsibility for marking it.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This is only another instance of how people can be misled when they follow the views of the Labour party, for on this particular Clause the Labour party were consulted. On this Clause, the headquarters of the Labour party were consulted—

Sir H. SLESSER: Surely, as the representative of South-East Leeds, I am entitled to express my opinion in this House as a Member of Parliament.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am only expressing regret that I was misled by some of the hon. and learned Member's officials as to what his views might be likely to be, but I suffer like other people who arc misled by the Labour party. I have to stand here in a white sheet and apologise to the Committee in regard to this Clause. I think the hon. and learned Member has made out a very good case. I remember, myself, when I was young, seeing how many ballot papers I could stamp at the same time and still produce a mark on the bottom paper as well as on the top paper, and I found that it was possible to do that with a certain number. But all that kind of thing gives rise to difficulties, I agree, and it is essential that every ballot paper should be properly marked and that no vote should he lost by any mistake of this kind in regard to the eccentricities of the presiding officer or by not, having ballot papers properly marked.
The idea underlying this Clause is that the returning officer, who is a responsible person, should be responsible for seeing that the ballot papers were officially marked, either by stamping or by printing on the back, before they were issued to the presiding officer. That is the real argument in favour of this Clause. However, I think it is quite possible that more mistakes might arise by the method of leaving the stamping or printing to
the returning officer than by leaving it to the presiding officer. The latter might omit the stamp or print and spoil a few papers, whereas, if there was a mistake on the part of the returning officer, it would be perhaps a hundred papers or a packet of ballot papers which might be omitted to be stamped with the official mark. That being so, I am prepared to give the same undertaking with regard to this Clause as I gave with regard to the last. Although the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) has every right to speak for the Front Bench opposite, in courtesy to him and to his officials I feel that I ought to ask them whether they still desire to mislead me in this way, or whether they would have any objection to my withdrawing the Clause and falling in with the views of the Front Bench of the Labour party.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Withdraw the Clause.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: But the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) has not power—and certainly the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds has not power—to speak for the Labour party.

Mr. ALEXANDER: What I meant was that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw his Clause now, and not in another place.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am explaining to the Committee why I cannot, out of courtesy to the Labour party, do that now, but I will give the same undertaking as I gave on the last occasion, with which, I think, the Committee was satisfied. Remember this, that I am not asking, as the hon. and learned Member would seem to suggest, the House of Lords to tamper with the ballot paper: I am asking them to say that this Clause might reasonably not have been inserted in an Economy Bill. I am not asking them to make any alteration in the ballot. These two Clauses have got in here, and—there is no secret about it—it has been done by the energy and the desire for improvement of officials of all parties. Therefore. I am disposed to ask the House of Lords to delete this Clause when it comes to them, and I think this Committee will
be satisfied with the undertaking that I have given.

Sir H. SLESSER: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken at some length about some unnamed officials and party organisation, but I would point out that the same observations were made about the last Clause. The right hon. Gentleman rejected that Clause on the ground of sonic negotiations with somebody, but he was not sure whether it was Clause 10 or Clause 11 with which those unnamed officials had been associated. If it is a question of courtesy, surely it is more courteous to deal with us who sit upon this bench and who ask that the Clause be withdrawn now—and certainly my hon. Friends on this bench are all with me—than to say that you are bound to go behind our backs to some unnamed officials who are not Members of Parliament. Surely, if we are asking the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Clause, his well-known courtesy will not be strained if he agrees with our request.

Mr. LEE: I want to say a word or two in regard to this Clause, as being particularly affected by stamping in the 1922 Election, already referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser). I want to say that the whole expense of that scrutiny and that 10 days' sitting with the Judges, amounting to, according to my hon. and learned Friend, something between £5,000 and £6,000, was all caused because certain of the ballot papers did not show any stamp at all and certain of them showed a very imperfect stamp. On the day of the count the counters started at 10 o'clock, and they counted till 9 o'clock the following morning, and then gave up the show altogether, and the whole trouble was with the stamping of those papers. I never inquired as to whether or not they came from a particular part of my constituency, though certain of my friends thought they did. But the whole of the difficulty came in that way, and when I came here, I asked a question of the then Home Secretary as to whether or not he was satisfied that the stamping machines used were all in order. He had them all brought to London, he examined them, and he said he believed they were in order and that, therefore, the fault was not with the stamping machines, but with the people who had been using them.
I am bound to confess that since I came here I have found that I have not been the only victim in that way. A friend on my right tells me that he had a very much larger number of votes uncounted in his election, though the difficulty, so far as I was concerned, was that our voting was so close that about twenty votes threw us one way or the other. When it was finally declared, I came here with a majority of three, largely owing to the fact that many of those papers were insufficiently stamped. Therefore, I am quite convinced personally, whatever consultation may have taken place on this point with other Members of the Labour party, that the stamping as done at the present time is not done carefully enough to safeguard against all that may happen in an election. I think the count or the scrutiny and everything that happened its regard to the North East Derbyshire election in 1922 will perhaps remain a classical event, but in any case steps ought to be taken to prevent a similar occurrence in future. If we rely upon printing and not on stamping the papers, they can so be printed that any fraud may be easily detected, and I think the Home Secretary should be satisfied with the printing and leave the stamping alone.

Mr. ALEXANDER: We ought not let this Amendment go to a vote 'and miss the opportunity of referring once more to what is the procedure of the Government in this matter. Here is the Economy Bill, which is full of grave import to thousands and millions of people in this country, and the attitude of the Government on this Clause is such

as to prevent a Report stage of the Bill, where further Amendments might be put down by representatives from the country of those people who are affected by the Bill, in order to get a discussion. In order to avoid that, although the Home Secretary admits that both Clause 10 and Clause 11 are unsatisfactory, and although he admits that both sides in this Committee have been against him and that he is going to have these Clauses withdrawn, he is not straight enough with the Committee to withdraw them now, but wants to have them withdrawn in another place, simply and solely from the point of view of avoiding a Report stage in this House.

That is not dealing fairly with the House of Commons or with the millions and millions of people who are members of the approved societies who are affected by another part of the Bill, and who want other opportunities for further points which they desire to be raised to be discussed on the Floor of the House. It is treating the House of Commons unfairly. I do not want to say anything stronger than that, but I think it just the same, and I want to raise my protest here and now about the attitude of the Home Secretary in withdrawing Clauses that he admits are unsatisfactory, not here but in another place, and not meeting the wishes of the House of Commons, simply in order to defeat the proper and legitimate aspiration of the people in the country who are affected by the Bill to get a discussion on the Report stage.

Question put, "That the word stamped ' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes 214; Noes, 120.

Division No. 171.]
AYES
[5.45 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Briggs, J. Harold
Clayton, G. C.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Briscoe, Richard George
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Albery, Irving James
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Cope, Major William


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool.W. Derby)
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Crookshank, Cpt. H (Lindsey, Ginsbro')


Apsley, Lord
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bullock, Captain M.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. {Kent, Dover)
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Burman, J. B.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Davies, Maj. Gen. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Campbell. E. T.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Beamish, Captain T. P. H
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Dawson, Sir Philip


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Drewe, C.


Betterton, Henry B.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Eden, Captain Anthony


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm.,W.)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Brass, Captain w.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Ramsden, E.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. F. s.
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Remnant, Sir James


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Rentoul, G. S.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Jephcott, A. R.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. sir William
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Finburgh, S.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Ropner, Major L.


Forrest, W.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Frece, Sir Walter de
Lamb, J. Q.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Ganzoni, sir John
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sandon, Lord


Gates, Percy
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Savory, S. S.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon, George Abraham
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Looker, Herbert William
Skelton, A. N.


Goft, Sir Park
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Slaney, Major P. Kenyan


Gower, Sir Robert
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Smithers, Waldron


Grace, John
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Lumley, L. R.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden,E.)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w, E)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Grotrian, H. Brent
MacIntyre, Ian
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
McLean, Major A.
Storry Deans, R.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Harland, A.
Macquisten, F. A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Haslam, Henry C.
Malone, Major P. B.
Tinne, J. A.


Hawke, John Anthony
Manningham Buller, Sir Mervyn
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Margesson, Captain D.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Meller, R. J.
Waterhouse. Captain Charles


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Merriman, F. B.
Watts, Dr. T.


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Wells, S. R.


Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Hills, Major John Waller
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hilton, Cecil
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Moore-Brabaton Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Murchison, C. K.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Womersley, W. J.


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'd.)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Nuttall, Ellis
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Oakley, T.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Penny, Frederick George
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Pilcher, G.



Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hume, Sir G. H.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain


Huntingfield, Lord
Preston, William
Bowyer.


Hurd, Percy A.
Price, Major C. W. M.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Keily, W. T.


Ammon, Charles George
Gillett, George M.
Kenyon, Barnet


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gosling, Harry
Lee, F.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Livingstone, A. M.


Barnes, A.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lowth, T.


Barr, J.
Greenall, T.
Lunn, William


Batey, Joseph
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Macdonald. Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Briant, Frank
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mackinder, W.


Broad, F. A.
Groves, T.
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Bromley, J.
Grundy, T. W.
March, S.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Maxton, James


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Montague, Frederick


Cape, Thomas
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morris, R. H.


Charleton, H. C.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Morrison. R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Cluse, W. S.
Harney, E. A.
Naylor, T. E.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Harris, Percy A.
Oliver, George Harold


Connolly, M.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Owen, Major G.


Cove, W. G.
Hayes, John Henry
Palin, John Henry


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Paling, W.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hirst, G. H.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Potts, John S.


Dennison, R.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Duncan, C.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Riley, Ben


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ritson, J.


Fenby, T. D.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Rose, Frank H.




Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Sutton, J. E.
Westwood, J.


Scrymgeour, E.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Whiteley, W.


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Sitch, Charles H.
Thurtle, E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Windsor, Walter


Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Viant, S. P.
Wright, W.


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wallhead, Richard C.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen



Stamford, T. W.
Warns, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Stephen, Campbell
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Mr. T. Kennedy and Mr. Allen




Parkinson.

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Sir PHILIP PILITCH: In page 9, line 9, to leave out the words "or printed."

Sir P. PILDITCH: I think I could make out as convincing a case for my Amendment as the hon. and learned Gentleman has just made for his. But, unlike him, I am quite satisfied with the undertaking which has just been given by the Home Secretary, that this matter shall receive full consideration before it comes back to this House on the conclusion of this Bill. I do not, therefore, propose to move the Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. THOMAS: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I am going to ask the Committee to oppose the Clause. The hon. Member opposite has not moved his Amendment, I gather, because of the statement of the Home Secretary. I submit that that statement in itself is trifling and playing with the responsibility of this House. We are accused of obstruction. We have been accused of delaying the progress of this Bill. We admit doing all we can to delay the progress of the Bill, but the procedure of this House provides for a, discussion on the Report stage. That discussion can only take place if an Amendment to the Bill be accepted. There was an Amendment down in the name of the Home Secretary, which Amendment, I presume, the Government, when the time came, would promptly have accepted. That in itself would have necessitated a Report stage for the Bill. When I saw the Order Paper this morning, I found that the Amendment had been withdrawn. I can only draw one conclusion, and that is, not that it is intended to drop the Amendment, not that this Bill shall go through without the
Amendment being included, because everyone knows that would be absurd, but that the Government deliberately intend to avoid the Report stage, and what they have arranged is for someone else in another place to move the Amendment for the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well it is all arranged. He knows perfectly well he cannot deny it, and, therefore, we are entitled to protest against this playing with the responsibility of the House of Commons.
I repeat that Parliament provides a Report stage, and the Government are deliberately setting out to prevent that Report stage. One would not complain of that if there was to be no Amendment. If this Bill were to come back from another place in precisely the same form, the justification for avoiding the Report stage might be defended by the Government, but when we know in advance that there are Amendments in the name of the Government themselves that are bound to be put down, and bound to be accepted, and that they are merely to be accepted in another place to prevent a Report stage here, I, on behalf of the Opposition, protest against that conduct, which is only consistent with the general conduct in connection with this Bill. On these grounds, I beg leave to move to report Progress.

Sir JOHN SIMON: There are two special reasons, in addition to those mentioned by my right hon. Friend, which seem to justify this protest and this Motion. What are the Clauses which the Home Secretary thinks it proper to leave to be dealt with effectively in the House of Lords? They are Clauses dealing with the Ballot Act. If there be one principle plainer than another, it is that the method by which Members of this House should be elected, the machinery by which the proper working of democratic institutions should be secured,
is a matter primarily for the House of Commons. If, indeed, the House of Lords took upon itself to alter the decision of the House of Commons in a matter of this sort, I should have thought many persons, not supporters of any Opposition here, would have thought that a very grave violation of constitutional propriety. Yet here we have the Home Secretary cheerfully telling us that these Clauses of this so-called Economy Bill—although what this has to do with economy, it is very difficult to find out—are to be handed over to the House of Lords to deal with.
The second observation which occurs to me is this. It is thoroughly characteristic of the Conservative Government that they should in this matter speak of the House of Commons as though the House of Lords were in their pocket. The Home Secretary does not even think it, is surprising when he assures this Committee that he will get this altered in the House of Lords. How does he know their Lordships will agree with the Government? What is there in the past history of the House of Lords which makes him suppose that if a Conservative Government wants something to be done, the House of Lords will do it? On those two grounds—first, that the Ballot Act ought to be dealt with in the House of Commons and not in the House of Lords, and, secondly, that it is adding insult to injury for a Conservative Government to leave this to the House of Lords, because it can be trusted to do what a Conservative Government wants, I support the Motion to report Progress.

6.0 P.M

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I point but that there is a precedent to the line of action which the Government are taking. It was set by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and if I have got him into the same boat, I am sure we shall be all right. The precedent I allude to is the case of the Government of India Act in regard to which several Amendments were moved in order to avoid a Report stage in a busy time. Those Amendments were not carried in this House, but were inserted in another place, and therefore at that time the other place was in the pocket of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon
Boroughs need not look so innocent about this, because at that time he was the dictator of the country, and those Amendments went through.
Really there was no necessity for the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Thomas) to make such a violent attack upon us in regard to these proposals because this very Clause to which exception is taken by the Labour party was prepared in the Home Office at a conference with returning officers and agents representing all the three parties, the Liberal party, the Labour party, and the Conservative party, and this particular Clause has been approved by some of the most experienced returning officers and town clerks in the country. I know it is most desirable to bow to the general opinion of the House, and I know this alteration of the Ballot Act—(An HON. MEMBER: "Why not drop it?"] Because it would not be courteous to the officials of the Labour party and the officials of the great party below the Gangway to withdraw this Clause without consulting them. I will at once consult those who were present at the conference the other day, tell them the fooling of the House, and try and get their assent to asking the House of Lords not to tamper with the Ballot Act, but to agree with the House of Commons and not, make any alterations in the Ballot Act. I do not think right hon. Gentlemen opposite need he so severe upon me for asking the House of Lords not to tamper with the Ballot Act. I am going to ask them to allow the Ballot Act to stand in its present form.

Sir J. SIMON: Has the Home Secretary any information from another place as to how another place is likely to receive his proposal?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir. It would be most improper to do anything of that kind. I will, however, do my utmost to express to my colleagues in another place the very strong feeling of the House of Commons that they do not want this Clause in spite of the agreement arrived at by their officials. Under these circumstances. I hope the right hon. Gentleman opposite will not think it necessary to press his Motion, but let us get on with the business.

Mr. THOMAS: I appreciate to the full the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety to persuade another place to give considera-
tion to our wishes. I do not pretend for a moment that we have the same influence as the Home Secretary with another place, but when we find it necessary to make any request to the other Chamber we shall not bother the Government to do it, but we shall do it ourselves. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that that argument will not hold water, and he knows that all the explanation he has just given is camouflage. Nobody knows this better than he does, and his supporters know it, and that is why they are all so silent about this Amendment. Why did the right hon. Gentleman withdraw his Amendment?

Sir W. JOYNSON HICKS: That was done because of some of the dates. The Scottish Office were not prepared with their dates.

Mr. THOMAS: Do I understand that the Amendment in its amended form will not appear in another place?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That I cannot say. I have had a consultation with the Scottish Law Officers, and, if they can provide a satisfactory Amendment, I shall endeavour to have it put upon the Amendment Paper.

Mr. THOMAS: The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment has been on the Amendment Paper for over 10 days. He has been in consultation with the Scottish Law Officers about the dates, and they have been so busy that they have not had time to amend his Amendment in 10 days. The Home Secretary knows perfectly web that the proper Parliamentary form is that he should move the Amendment in this House in order that the House of Commons can debate it. If after that there is any difficulty, the usual course is to have it dealt with in another place, and the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that he has not given us the real explanation, which is that the Government wish to avoid a Report stage on this Bill. I may tell the right hon. Gentleman, quite frankly, that I have put

down in my name his Amendment, and I shall give him an opportunity of accepting his own Amendment from myself. It will appear on the Amendment Paper in the morning, and therefore I do not think the Government will be able to get out of having a Report stage in that way. This only shows the extraordinary methods which have been adopted by the Government in regard to this Bill. The supporters of the Government come down here in teams, and they stop them from delegating this Measure, and, after taking such steps as those, they are trying to prevent a Debate on the Report stage in the House of Commons. This action will not prevent us using all the means we can to draw the attention of the country to the iniquitous conduct of the Government in this matter.

Mr. WESTWOOD: The Home Secretary told us that one of his reasons for not requiring a Report Stage was that the Scottish Office has not yet come to an agreement about the dates. I understand that the dates were agreed to at a conference representing all political parties in Scotland where the question of the dates was discussed and I have those dates in my hand. Therefore, I am going to suggest to the Home Secretary that he had better try and discover some other reason and avoid terminological inexactitudes. Here arc the dates, and I think the Secretary of State for Scotland has also got them.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: In such a matter as this the Government do not place reliance on political agents. This very Clause was agreed to by the political agents of the Labour party and now they are turning against it. I must accept my official information on this point from the Scottish Office and not from political agents.

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 120; Noes, 228.

Division No. 172.]
AYES.
[6.12 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Batey, Joseph
Cape, Thomas


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Charleton, H. C.


Ammon, Charles George
Briant, Frank
Cluse, W. S.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Broad, F. A.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Bromley, J.
Connolly, M.


Barnes, A.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Cove, W. G.


Barr, J.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kennedy, T.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kenyon, Barnet
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lee, F.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Dennison, R.
Livingstone, A. M.
Stamford, T. W.


Duncan, C.
Lowth, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lunn, William
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Fenby, T. D.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Sutton, J. E.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


George, fit. Hon. David Lloyd
Mackinder, W.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Gillett, George M.
MacLaren, Andrew
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Gosling, Harry
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
March, S.
Thurtle, E.


Greenall, T.
Maxton, James
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Montague, Frederick
Viant, S. P.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morris, R. H.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Walsh. Rt. Hon. Stephen


Groves, T.
Naylor, T. E.
Warne, G. H.


Grundy, T. W.
Oliver, George Harold
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Owen, Major G.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Palin, John Henry
Wedgwood. Rt. Hon. Josiah


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling, W.
Westwood, J.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Whiteley, W.


Harney, E. A.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Harris, Percy A.
Potts, John S.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Richardson, Ft. (Houghton-le Spring)
Williams, David (Swansea. E.)


Hayes, John Henry
Riley, Ben
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Ritson, J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hirst, G. H.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Windsor, Walter


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wright, W.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Scrymgeour, E.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond



Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. T.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sitch. Charles H.
Henderson.


Kelly, W. T.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Cope, Major William
Harland, A.


Albery, Irving James
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Croft Brigadier-General Sir H.
Haslam, Henry C.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hawke, John Anthony


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Apsley, Lord
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd. Hemel Hempst'd)
Heneage. Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hills, Major John Waller


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hilton, Cecil


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Drewe, C.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)


Barnston, Major sir Harry
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Betterton, Henry B.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Blundell, F. N.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Brass, Captain W.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald


Bridgeman. Rt. Hon. William Clive
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N).


Briggs, J. Harold
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Briscoe, Richard George
Finburgh, S.
Huntingfield, Lord


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Forrest, W.
Hurd, Percy A.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Frece, Sir Walter de
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Jacob, A. E.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Ganzoni, Sir John
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Bullock, Captain M.
Gates, Percy
Jephcott, A. R.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel sir Alan
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Burman, J. B.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Campbell, E. T.
Goff, Sir Park
Kinloch Cooke, Sir Clement


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Gower, Sir Robert
Knox, Sir Alfred


Cazalet, Captain victor A.
Grace, John
Lamb, J. Q.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Chamberlain. Rt. Hn. Sir J.A. (Birm., W.)
Greenwood. Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w.E)
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Gretton, Colonel John
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Looker, Herbert William


Clayton, G. C.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Lowe, Sir Francis William




Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Luce, Maj.-Gen. sir Richard Harman
Pilcher, G.
Storry-Deans, R.


Lumley, L. R.
Pliditch, Sir Philip
Strickland, Sir Gerald


MacAndrew, Major Charles; Glen
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Preston, William
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


MacIntyre, Ian
Price, Major C. W. M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


McLean, Major A.
Ramsden, E.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Macmillan, Captain H.
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Remnant, Sir James
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Rentoul G. S.
Thomson. Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Macquisten, F. A.
Rice, Sir Frederick
Tinne, J. A.


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Ropner, Major L.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Malone, Major P. B.
Salmon, Major I.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Watts, Dr. T.


Margesson, Capt. D
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wells, S. R.


Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Meller, R. J.
Sandon, Lord
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Merriman, F. B.
Savery, S. S.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Meyer, Sir Frank
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Shaw. R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Womersley, W. J.


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Skelton, A. N.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Murchison, C. K.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Newton, sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Smithers, Waldron
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G. (Ptrsf ld.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Nuttall, Ellis
Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F. {Will'sden, E.)



Oakley, T.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Penny, Frederick George
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'etand)
Major Hennessy and Captain




Bowyer.


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 12.—(Polls in Orkney and Zetland.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: We now come to a bright spot in what has been a rather gloomy Bill. Hon. Members must not think that, any saving is to be effected here, because, as far as I can see, the saving will he infinitesimal. I may, however, say, for the information of hon. Members, that this is a matter which has been under consideration for several years, and that all parties in the Islands are agreed upon it. To whatever political party they may belong, they are all agreed that they ought to have greater facilities for polling. Under the old law, two days were allowed us, because it was considered that, if the weather was bad on one day, it, might be better on the next, and so people might have an opportunity of getting in on one or other of the two days. Experience, however, has shown that people are very often inclined, if they have an opportunity of polling on two days, not, to poll on the first day, but to put it off until the second; and then, if the weather on the second day is bad, and they are not able to get across the Sound, there is no particular advantage in having a second day. Experience has
also shown that a 12-mile walk across the hills is just as long on Saturday as it is on Friday.
The only manner, therefore, in which we can get over our present difficulties is by having a very largely increased number of polling stations. I may point out that, since the electorate was largely increased under the Representation of the People Act, no further facilities have been granted to the Islands for polling, and, if it is difficult for a man to walk 24 miles to the poll and back across the hills on a winter's day, what about his wife? Personally, I rather question whether, under these conditions, many women do poll. In order that the Committee may realise what these difficulties are, I may point out that, at the last contested election, which was a very hotly contested election, the total percentage of the electors that got to the poll was mothing unde 40.
I have to thank the Scottish Office, who have always looked with a kindly eye upon any efforts to get over our difficulties in Orkney and Shetland, but I must say it was with some surprise that I found what was my own little Bill snugly esconced in the middle of this long Economy Bill, especially as I have to appeal to the Government for an assurance that they will not endeavour to effect an economy here at the expense of the number of polling stations that
have been asked for by the two county councils. The present number of polling stations is 16 in Orkney and 12 in Shetland, making 28 in all, and the lowest number that we think we can do with, in the case of a single-day election, is about 54, or practically double the present number.
The Committee will realise that, in the case of an electorate such as this, when there are two days for the poll and long distances have to be covered, the country is put to considerable expense, and there is no doubt that it will be to the advantage of all concerned if the poll can be held on one day, and if the cost incurred owing to the two days' polling can be spread over a very much larger number of polling stations, so as to give the electors an opportunity of recording their votes. From some figures given to me by the Scottish Office a year or two ago, it appeared that the General Election of, I think, 1922, cost £660, or, for the polling stations as they then existed, an average of about £23 10s. each. With a one-day poll, putting the average cost of each polling station at about £10 and having 54 stations, that makes a total of £540, giving an economy of about £120 whenever a General Election might occur. That, however small it may be, is worth having, I admit, in these hard times, but I would ask for an assurance from the Government that they will not endeavour to effect an economy at the expense of the number of polling stations that have been asked for by the two county councils.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) has said, and as the Committee knows, the hon. Member's Bill is here brought to practical effect, and will be carried out under this Clause. That, I think, is in accord with the general wish, not only of the county councils, but of the great mass of the voters, and, indeed, of the returning officer. I have taken the trouble to discuss this matter with the Sheriff and with others concerned, and the conclusion I have come to is that, by securing this Clause, we can increase the number of polling stations and give increased facilities to the people in these admittedly very difficult districts, and I
think that polling on a single day will be of great advantage to everyone concerned. As to the actual economy, it may not, indeed, be a very large one, but I believe, without prejudice—and as to this I am as anxious as the hon. Member—that these elections shall be carried out in accordance with the knowledge which those concerned possess, that an economy can still be achieved, though how great that economy may be I do not at the moment know. The Committe will agree that we are not doing this with any idea of lessening the facilities for voters in this area, or of interfering with the proper procedure at elections, and I think the Clause is a reasonable one to insert in this Bill.

Mr. STEPHEN: I should like to support the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) in his claim that all the money should he expended in giving proper facilities for the people in these districts. Some of us have had experience of wandering round large constituencies, and I have been struck by the unfairness, to the poorer people in these districts, of providing so small a number of polling stations. I simply rose for the purpose of impressing upon the Secretary of State for Scotland that, as a good guardian and representative of the interests of the people of Scotland, he should turn a deaf ear to any representation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which is going to do an injustice to these people.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I want to congratulate the Government upon the efforts they arc making towards economy. I suppose that before very long the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be introducing a Budget which will range somewhere in the neighbourhood of £800,000,000, and that may go on for the next year and the year after that. It is well to know that, in about the third year after the introduction of a Budget of that description, we are assured by the right hon. Gentleman that the Government think there will be an economy, so far as this is concerned, that may amount to anything from £120 to £150. These economies are highly interesting. They do great credit to the Government. I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon his eagle eye. The people will be glad to know that he is watching so carefully the expenditure of this country. He reminds
me of a small shopkeeper trying to evade bankruptcy by petty economy, and it is interesting to learn that it will go down to history that this country, with a Budget of £800,000,000, was congratulating itself in the House of Commons upon an effort to save £120 once in five years. I again congratulate the Government.

Clause 13 (Short title, construction, and extent of Part III), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 14.—(Operation of Section 118 of Education, Act, 1921.)

Mr. TREVELYAN: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (1).
We now get back to the more formidable economics which this Bill contains. Before I proceed further, perhaps it would be well to have it made clear that we can have a full discussion of ail the points raised in this Sub-section, and that that will not debar the moving of Amendments on specific points- subsequently.

he DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): It might be for the convenience of the Committee if we had a full discussion on the Amendment to leave out Sub-section (1), and I should not be disinclined to allow at the same time, white the discussion is going on, reference being made to Sub-section (2). That appears to me to be the most convenient method, because the subsequent Amendments, although no doubt important in themselves, are of minor importance as compared with the first Amendment to leave out Sub-section (1). If that be generally agreed upon by the Committee, I think it will be the best course to pursue.

Mr. TREVELYAN: Provided it is understood that the more important Amendments can be moved and voted upon, I shall be satisfied. There are one or two Amendments which necessarily have to be taken separately. I do not propose to say anything about Subsection (2), which deals with an entirely different point and possibly a less controversial one.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: An arrangement that is come to in this way will naturally not prejudice Divisions being taken on subsequent Amendments.

Mr. COVE: Does that cut out discussions which might be relevant to each Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN: Not relevant really to the Amendment itself.

Mr. TREVELYAN: We have not yet had any official justification of this Clause from the author of it. There were several speeches made on the Second Reading which referred to this Education Clause by my right hon. Friends the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove), the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) and others, but the Minister of Education did not reply. The Minister of Health gave a reason for this Clause which struck me as rather a remarkable one. The principal phrase he used was that, as a matter of fact, the Clause gave the Minister nothing that is not really possessed by him already. If it be really the case that we are to enjoy an extra day's debate and many hours of precious Parliamentary time are to be used in order to present the right hon. Gentleman with powers which he already possesses, it is a very peculiar method of using Parliamentary time. I should like to invite the right hon. Gentleman to give a quite explicit statement as to whether he regards this Clause as merely declaratory. As a matter of fact, I am bound to discard that reason. I do not think it is merely declaratory—very far from it.
It is true that under the powers of the Education Acts the Board has in the past on occasions exercised the power of refusing grants in certain specific cases to local education authorities where it thought they were showing that their expenditure was excessive. For instance, they have disallowed grants in cases where the salaries of teachers were in excess of the agreed scales for education authorities. They have disallowed the grant in cases where the expenditure on the feeding of children was above what the Board of Education had laid down. They have also disallowed grants in eases where the capital expenditure upon the building of schools has been above a certain amount per place and here and there they have exercised, under their present powers, some restriction of educational expenditure, but
that is a very different thing, selecting one or two cases as has been done in the past, from giving a general power of limiting grants to the Ministry of Education, for quite general reasons such as are contained in this Clause, if, in the opinion of the Board, the expenditure is excessive having regard to the circumstances of the area of the authority or the general standard of expenditure in other areas.
The fact is that this is part of a new policy. It is an attempt to assert a new and quite unheard of autocracy over the general development of local education authorities by the right hon. Gentleman. It has to be read in connection with the rest of his actions during the last six months. It is simply one of a series of economic manœuvres on his part. The first ones were not very successful, and this is what he is falling back on. He began with Circular 1371. That was an attacken masse upon educational expenditure—an attempt to order a general reduction by local education authorities. That was not very popular. I think eight speeches were made from the Conservative Benches, and three of them only approved of the procedure. Then came Memorandum 44. That was rather milder. Still it suggested a halt for local authorities. These two Measures have been withdrawn and superseded. They were not successful. Public opinion was too strong against them. So the right hon. Gentleman falls back upon a new policy, of which this is the essential pivot. He withdrew his Circulars and his Memorandum, and he issued a new proclamation. I do not know what it was. It did not call itself a circular. It did not call itself a memorandum. It had no name and it had no number. However, it went out to the local authorities. This nameless, numberless thing, I suppose, he thinks cannot be recalled or withdrawn, because it has not any name or any number. The essence of this new Circular was an effort on his part to impose detailed restrictions, as he had failed in making reductions. It made known to local authorities that they would have to come and justify their expenditure at the Board of Education, and that they would have to go through a process of cajoling and bullying at the Board of Education and the stiffest chairman would get the
best terms from the right hon. Gentleman. But, of course, the most go-ahead and progressive authorities in the country, those who were less afraid of spending than the others, are among those who have the strongest chairmen and the most vigorous personalities. He was rather afraid of the issue, so he has come to the Committee to-day to get a general power of restriction. What are the principles on which he wants the House of Commons to give him power with which to steam roller the objections of the local authorities. He is to be able to decide whether the expenditure of an authority is excessive, having regard to the circumstances of the area of the authority or the general standard of expenditure in other areas. Let us take those two powers which he proposes to give himself:
Having regard to the circumstances of the area of the authority.
There is a glorious phrase for you. Can anyone explain it? What does it mean? How does that remove doubts? What is he thinking about? I do not know what is really in his mind. I will try to see if this suggestion is right. We have certain authorities that are grossly over-rated. We have certain authorities where there is very great distress. Any increase of the rates in those authorities is undoubtedly a very severe trial to the Population. We all agree. There are places, let us say, like Abertillery and Chester-le-Street. Here you have poverty-stricken districts. I should conceive what the right hon. Gentleman wants is to be able to say "Here is an over-rated district." With his passion for economy he thinks of nothing except saving the rates; high as they are, and he is going to be prepared to say, "You cannot afford any further expenditure. The circumstances of the area require that there should be no increased educational expenditure of any kind." It does not seem to me that it is for him to decide that. It is the local authority who ought to decide it. If the people in a district that is in a state of destitution choose to say, as I can imagine they might under the circumstances be quite justified in saying, that the poverty of the people is only a greater reason and not a less reason for communal services, the local authority ought to be able to say that, and ought to be able, even in a state of impoverishment, to spend more rates on feeding the
children and on medical treatment of the children, who want it more and not less because their parents are impoverished.
I am not suggesting that the House should decide between these two views, but what I say is that the right hon. Gentleman ought not to have the autocratic power of saying, "I think that Abertillery is so overrated that there ought not to be any increase of educational expenditure." I should like to know whether it does not mean something of this kind, that he is to be the judge of the conditions of the district. That seems to me to be the most absolute power that we have ever been asked to put into the hands of a Minister. Now I come to the second condition:
Any expenditure which in the opinion of the Board is excessive, having regard to the general standard of expenditure in other areas.
That is the most serious part of this new provision. What that means is intelligible. It means that he is to be the judge. If he thinks a local education authority is spending more than other authorities, he is to be the judge. He is to say, "You are spending more than other authorities, and, because you are spending more, I am going to bring you down to the lower standard of other authorities." The changes that pass over the policy of the right hon. Gentleman are very curious. Some months ago lie made a speech in which he used these phrases:
We must proceed on the basis that the grant system is going to remain substantially as at present. Nobody, I am sure, wants to create a general dead level of educational attainment in this country. I must do what little I can towards levelling up. I do not want any education authority to think it cannot put forward a programme representing all it really wants to do for fear that the Board would try to cut it down in order to equal it with some other less progressive authority. There is no such intention in our minds at all.
What on earth does this Clause mean if it does not mean that? Can the standards of one authority be judged by another? Two years ago the Board of Education issued a Memorandum about the cost per child for elementary education. In that Memorandum they made this statement, which is interesting as showing the general view of the Board of Education:
The circumstances which determine cost per child differ widely from one area
to another, and no experienced reader will be likely to fall into the error of supposing that it is possible without knowledge of those circumstances to deduce a standard figure of cost above which any expenditure is excessive and below which it s insufficient. It is impossible that the tables themselves should supply information as to the causes which operate in each area to make expenditure comparatively high or low, but the following general list of causes which may affect the cost per, child may assist Local Education Authorities and others in following up the inquiries suggested by the tables.
Then come two pages of causes which may affect the difference in expenditure between one local education authority and another. What the Board of Education really says in that memorandum is, that you cannot really compare one authority with another, because the causes of the difference of standard in expenditure between one part of the country and another are so innumerable. What does this Clause mean It can mean only one thing. It can only be directed against the more enterprising local authorities. What has been the principle of our educational advance? We are working in education on the basis, which was laid down by the Conservative Government in 1902. The basis of that legislation was that education development should be a local thing, that the way in which we could get the most real advance would be by allowing, say, Durham, Devonshire, Buckinghamshire, Shropshire or Carnarvonshire each go their own pace to a great extent; that the nation should Jay down a minimum, and that the way in which we should get educational advance would be by the example shown by the more advanced local authorities. The idea was that the experiment of to-day should become the rule of the next era in education.
Let us see how it operates. Take the city of Bradford, which a generation before most of the other cities of the country decided that secondary education as far as possible ought to be available for all children. It goes far ahead of most other great cities in secondary education. It has 20 children out of every 1,000 of the population in secondary education. There are only six per thousand in Birmingham. Other cities are very far behind Bradford. The whole idea of our education system is that the progressive authorities should lead, and a few years afterwards induce
the other authorities to follow. Take the example of London. London, just before the War, I think it was, decided to have dental treatment for all children in its schools, that the teeth of the children should not only be examined but should be actually dealt with. In 10 years the proportion of bad teeth among the children of London was halved by that process. Other local authorities, observing what happened in London, are now beginning to follow suit and wanting to have dental treatment, which they see has been so provedly successful in the case of the Metropolis. That is the way the system works. What does this Clause mean, except that that system is to he stopped, that the progressive authorities are no longer to be able to go ahead where they want and to try the experiments which are going to enlighten the country, if only they are allowed to make them?
I want the right hon. Gentleman to tell us specifically what authorities he is going to deal with. We have a right to know. It is not good enough to tell us that there may be some authority which is extravagant compared with its neighbour. He must be thinking of some specific authorities. Which are they? Is Durham one? I do not know. Durham is wanting to go ahead, even now, even with high rates. Durham is a very progressive authority, and is anxious to go on. It happens to have a Labour majority. Is the President of the Board of Education going to say to Durham: "The general standard of expenditure in other areas is much lower than your's. When I take the average of other authorities, including Devonshire, Shropshire, and so on, I find that far less is being spent than is being spent by you in Durham. You will have to come down to the level of the lower grades." Is he going to say that to Durham? Is Bradford his objective, or London? In the last few weeks London has tried to meet him in every possible way. They have been very considerate towards his new policy of economy. They have considerably reduced their proposed expenditure, but since then the London County Council have had a letter which contains the following passage:
As the Council are aware, the cost per child in their elementary education service is more than 40 per cent. in excess of the
average of the country as a whole. The difference is even more striking if particular items are considered. For instance, the cost per child of the Council's administrative charges for elementary education is nearly three times the average for the county boroughs.
7.0 P.M.
I am told that the answer of the County Council to that was to increase their administrative charges. If so, I am glad. I ask the right hon. Gentleman specifically: Is London one of the places to which he proposes to apply his new power which he is asking the House to give him? We are entitled to know, quite definitely. He cannot tell us that he has not any authorities in his mind; otherwise it would be mocking at the House to bring in this proposal. If he has authorities in his mind, let us know which they are. This is a very vague Clause. It is not like the previous Clauses which we have discussed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to make £2,800,000 out of the first part of the Bill. He is going to make £1,100,000 out of the second part of the Bill. I do not know how much he will make out of the little Clause that we have been discussing regarding the electoral system. We have had the figures on the other Clauses, but here we have a vague proposal which may mean anything or may mean nothing. I say frankly that if I were in the right hon. Gentleman's place it would mean nothing, but in his mind it means something. We ask him quite explicitly what it is he thinks it means. He has no right whatever to ask for these powers, which I quite advisedly call autocratic powers, upsetting the whole general arrangements of the relations between the Board of Education and the local education authorities unless he will tell us, first of all, whether the game is worth the candle and how many scores of thousands or hundreds of thousands of pounds he thinks he is going to get out of it. I ask him quite definitely to tell us what local authorities he is going to penalise under these proposals.

Sir J. SIMON: Before the Minister of Education answers the very explicit and pertinent questions which have just been addressed to him across the Table by the late Minister of Education, may I be allowed to express from another quarter of the House the deep concern which so many people feel at the inclusion of this Clause in the Economy Bill. There may
be other Clauses in the Bill which attract the presence of a larger number of Members of the House of Commons, excite passions, and provoke denunciations, which may be necessary but which furnish more lively material for the Press, but I speak quite deliberately when I say that I believe it is the view of a larger mass of serious people in the country of all parties that this Clause threatens a. real injury to education than is the adverse view taken on any other part of this Bill. This is by no means a view that is confined to those who find themselves on this side of the House. It is entirely to the credit of hon. Members opposite that, when some months ago the Board of Education, through the mouth of the Noble Lord, appeared to be making new proposals, which really threatened the development of educational progress, the most emphatic protests came from speakers in all parts of the House, including some speakers on the Government side.
What is it which so seriously concerns people, many of them not strong party people, but people who take a real interest in the rapid development of education in this country when they read this Clause? First of all, I notice this, that the Clause is introduced with the mysterious phrase, "For the removal of doubts." I am all for removing doubts, but what on earth is the good, in a Bill which is supposed to be engaged in saving money, to include a Clause with the elaborate pretence that it is merely for the purpose of removing doubts? Removing doubts may clear people's minds, but it does not empty people's pockets, and there is no possible connection between the fundamental object of an Economy Bill—if by that you mean that you hope to reduce public outlay—and the mere removal of doubts. You cannot cash doubts into surpluses for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I find it impossible to believe that a Clause which is thus solemnly recommended to us for the removal of doubts is really and truly expected to have no other function and effect than that of clearing people's minds. The real object of the Clause, in so far as it has any effect at all in the direction which is called economy, is to discourage certain local education authorities from that reliance which they have been accustomed to place upon the Board of
Education as their partner in educational progress.
The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken put the point not only with great clearness, but with very special knowledge. There are two ways in which you might imagine the relations to exist between the central educational Department of the country, represented by the Noble Lord, and these different local authorities, and everything depends upon which of these two ways is right. One way is to treat the central educational Department as a grudging paymaster that will provide from central funds a certain portion of what is needed to finance education, but will leave to the local authorities all the anxieties, all the uncertainties, and, it may be, all the really heavy additional burdens which in the course of their duty they feel it necessary to undertake. That is one view. The other view is the view that the central educational Department, representing the Government of the day, should not be a mere grudging paymaster, always surveying everybody's expenditure with a view to cutting it down or complaining of it, but that they should be an active partner in the essential business of promoting educational progress. I do not-dispute that, in an exceptionally gross case where the Board of Education must intervene and protest, they ought not to have that power, and they have got it now.
What do hon. Members suppose is the effect of telling three or four hundred of the education authorities of the country "For the purpose of removing doubts, I give you clear notice that I, Conservative Minister of Education, have had specially carried in this Session of Parliament a Clause which gives the express power to refuse to contribute to expenditure which
in the opinion of the Board is excessive having regard to the circumstances of the area of the authority or the general standard of expenditure in other areas, or which in the opinion of the Board unreasonably exceeds any estimate of expenditure made by the authority.
What is the result going to be? After all, the Noble Lord has protested again and again, and for my part I quite accept his protest, that he is sincerely devoted to promoting the cause of public education. You cannot carry on the business of public education in many areas if you are to tell people that they
are to live from hand to mouth. It is of the very essence of such administration that you should tell the local authorities, "There is a principle upon which I propose to treat you. If the expenditure is of a class that I do not recognise that is your look out. But if it is expenditure which I recognise I am prepared to deal with you upon this basis, that if you, the. Local Educational Authority, feel that you can call upon the ratepayers of your area to raise so much money, why then I will double it." That is the very essence of the practical assistance which the Board of Education can give to local authorities, inasmuch as education schemes cannot be altered from day to day and from week to week, but involve the laying of plans which may be for years ahead. It surely is nothing more than an active discouragement of educational progress to say at this time of day, "I would like to inform you that when you undertake such and such a head of education, although it may be that it is expenditure that I have approved, although it may be that I have passed the. scheme, although it may be that I have circularised you and encouraged it, I shall always reserve to myself the active power of saying Let us look at the bill and see if the actual amount you ask me to contribute is more than the sum I feel disposed to contribute.' "
Why, even if the Minister of Education was really head of the Government and had the control of the public purse, I should doubt whether it was wise to entrust him with such a power. But in this matter—and I am sure unwillingly—he is merely the bond slave of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Here is an Economy Bill which, as the back of it shows, is presented to the House of Commons by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the astonishing thing is that, as each important matter comes up, some junior colleague of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is so good as to provide him with the necessities of defence while the Chancellor of the Exchequer stays away. The Chancellor of the Exchequer reminds me of the description given by Mr. John Fortescue in that most delightful book, "The Story of a Red Deer," of how the old Exmoor stag behaves when he thinks he may be
pursued. Mr. Fortescue describes how the old stag rushes into a thicket and finds lurking there same smaller stag, possibly only a doe or a hind, routs the poor creature out of his lair, forces it to break into the open and attract the attention of the hunters and the stag hounds, while the wise old stag snuggles down in the warm bed he has just caused his junior colleague to desert. The consequence is that, although this is an Economy Bill which is supposed to be the particular concern and duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he has routed out in turn the Minister of Health, the Minister of War, and the Minister of Education in order that they may defend this, that, and the other of his provisions as though they really were the concern of their Departments.
I should really feel a little doubt about this if the Noble Lord had put up a fight, but as far as I can see he has put up no fight at all. Let me remind the Noble Lord of the extraordinary story which really will be associated with his name in this matter. He joined a Government which really obtained a portion of its great majority by the assurance, and I am now quoting the words of the Prime Minister:
Nor can we make such economies as will touch the education or health of our people in such a way that the burden of those economies rests on one class, and one class alone.
In substance, what you are proposing in Clause 14 is really skimping and scraping at the expense of one class, the class that depends primarily on the elementary school, not entirely but substantially. Not only that, but the Noble Lord himself, addressing the local education authorities on programmes to be submitted to the Board of Education, used this language. He said:
We must proceed upon the basis that the grant system is going to remain substantially as it is at present. We must start from the basis that local authorities are to estimate how far they can go financially under the present arrangements and not on the hypothesis that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may four years hence be willing to alter these arrangements.
After all that, the Noble Lord came forward at the bidding of the Cabinet, inspired by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to announce new arrangements. He produced the famous Circular 1371. I often wonder whether when boys
and girls in an elementary school are asked what happened in 1371, they will know the answer, and whether they will say: "That is the year when Percy fought upon his stumps." What else happened in 1371? It is very difficult to say offhand. At any rate, here is this Circular 1371 elaborately prepared by the Board of Education. We had a Debate in this House—Heaven knows what the state of the President of the Board of Education was at the end of it—when he intimated that it was to be withdrawn; and it has been. We had Memorandum 44, not one single word of which was addressed to the subject of educational progress. No one can read it without seeing that it was addressed simply and solely to an effort, fathered by the Board of Education, to try to cut down certain items of expenditure. That may or may not be good finance, but I doubt very much whether it is good finance to skimp education. At any rate it is not promoting education at all. Still less is it promoting education when your changes are not changes which give you better value for your money, that somehow you are going to get more education for less cash, but are addressed simply and solely to the sordid topic, how can we secure that the educational estimates will be rather smaller than they might be. I thought the Noble Lord was going to stick to it. There was a storm however, and he abandoned it. Now it comes up in this new form in the present Bill.
Just consider what these supposed tests arc. In any event it is most foolish to apply tests of this sort by anticipation to over three or four hundred local authorities, who must lay their plans in advance relying upon what the Board of Education will do for them. The London County Council, I understand, are at this moment protesting against the language of this Clause. And consider why. What are your tests? Could anything be more absurd? You say, I am going to refuse to pay up if I think the expenditure is "excessive having regard to the circumstances of the area of the authority." How are you going to judge that? By what standard are you going to measure it? And how is a local authority to know or have any chance of knowing what you are going to do for it? Can the Noble Lord be surprised if some people think that the "circumstances of
the area of the authority "is something which is locked up in his own breast. It is difficult for people who are anxious to get on with their education work to know where they will be.
The second test is this: The Noble Lord wants to proclaim that he is going to refuse to make his normal contribution of 50 per cent. if he is of opinion that the amount is excessive, having regard to "the general standard of expenditure in other areas." I say advisedly that that is necessarily and deliberately a scaling down, a slowing down, of educational progress in this country. Let me give an obvious illustration. If you say that no member of the English cricket eleven is to be allowed to obtain more runs than the average number of runs made by any other member of the side, you are reducing the score. If you say to any local authority, "I am not going to allow you to have more money than the amount which will be arrived at by making an average of all the people who are not doing their duty, by making an average of the amount spent by all the reactionary authorities," it follows, necessarily, that in the very case where the authority has the greatest need, you are saying you will not tell them exactly what you will do; and you are deliberately reducing and slowing down educational expenditure.
It means a constant lowering of the average. I was told by a. very distinguished doctor, now dead, who was at the head of St. Bortholomew's, a story about averages which illustrates this point. He said he had been reading a treatise by a very learned Continental medical man about a very rare disease which seldom attacks the human race. In the body of the treatise it said that on an average the disease attacked the human race in middle life, about 45 years of age, and when he examined the appendices to the book for a record of the cases there were only two; one a case in which the disease attacked and, unfortunately, deprived an infant of six months of life, and the other a case in which the disease attacked an old man of 90. If you say that any local authority is to be in danger if it spends more than the average, you are deliberately reducing and slowing down the rate at which education can be promoted.
These are the reasons, and they are not party reasons—I have not made any
party point on this subject, except that the Noble Lord helped the Conservatives to sweep the country at the last Election by the assurances he gave on education which have not been carried out—why, it does seem to me that this is a most retrograde step. No wonder the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not like to be here. He is a bold man, but still there are some quotations which it is very difficult to face. The Chancellor of the Exchequer went into his constituency and addressed the girls in the Woodford County Girls' School. He went there for a little plain talk, and for the "purpose of removing doubts," and he said:
Education in a country like ours is absolutely vital, not only to progress but to peace. Those who thought that we could become richer or more stable as a country by stinting education and crippling the instruction of our young people were a most benighted class of human beings. It was absolutely necessary that thrift and economy should be practised in every branch of our Services.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear! "] Hon. Members who have cheered that statement are not attending to the argument. I am pointing out that there is nothing whatever in this Clause which secures better value for the money. It is not a Clause which says that the President of the Board of Education will pay you money if you do so and so. It is a threat that in certain events they may not get their money at all. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech went on to say:
It must roll forward from one generation to another. Only in that way would the people of these small islands he fitted to work together in amity and good will and sustain the responsibilities of the British Empire and preserve unbroken its glorious continuity of history.
The girls cheered enthusiastically. After all they were only paying a meed of applause to a gentleman who had come there to address them, but if supporters of the Government can cheer with equal enthusiasm in the face of the provisions of Clause 14, we know where we are. The real truth is that in the last resort this kind of administration puts education below the position of importance which we are always led to understand is occupied by other branches of the public service. I do not agree. I do not believe the strength of the country, or the defence of the country, the safety of the
country or the progress of the country, are better guaranteed by big armaments than they are by good education, arid my complaint is that Clause 14, spatchcocked here into an Economy Bill with its ridiculous Preamble about the removal of doubts, really only records the contribution which the Noble Lord, in spite of all his genuine enthusiasm for education, is allowed to make by a Conservative administration, which apparently is preoccupied by the balancing of the Budget.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): The two speeches to which we have just listened have at any rate supplied a full and complete answer to what I have always felt was the only serious argument against this Clause—namely, that it was not worth while enacting it because it only represents the existing position. Clearly if the two right hon. Gentlemen, one of whom has had such a close experience of educational administration, still entertain these views about the effect of this Clause, it is high time for legislation for the removal of doubt. The two right hon. Gentlemen have indulged in a certain number of phrases about my passion for economy, about a new and unheard of autocracy, and about the stinting and skimping of education. This is not a Debate on the Board of Education Estimates, but in view of these statements I may perhaps be allowed to remind the Committee that in this year, when the expenditure on the fighting services is being cut down, when there have been cuts in various other Estimates, the Board of Education Estimates have gone up by over £1,000,000. Let me read the figures of the total expenditure of local authorities for the last three years. In 1924–25 it was £68,943,000: in 1925–26 it was, according to our estimate, £70,250,000; and in 1926–27 the Board's Estimates provide for£70,960,000.
The capital expenditure approved in the last three years has been£1,915.000 in 1923–24; £4,488,000 in 1924–25; and £6,015,000 in. 1925–26, and for the four months referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) as the months of Circular 1371 and Memorandum 44, when there was an attempt, an abortive attempt, to hold up education, capital expenditure was approved to the amount of £1,878,000. When the right hon. Gentlemen can get over facts like
that it will be time for them to repeat in this House or in this Committee the vague statements which they make on public platforms. Until they face these facts it is really unnecessary to give any longer reply.
Now I come to the Clause itself, and I propose to show in the first place that these powers are a necessary part of the percentage grants system. I will show, secondly, that they accurately represent the practice of the Board under all Governments in the past. Finally, I shall show that they embody the principle which has been urged by both Opposition parties. I am going to ask the Opposition why they have suddenly changed their policy, why there is now something peculiarly dreadful about this method.
Let us consider what is the Act which this Clause seeks to interpret? The Act lays down—and it is the only guarantee that local authorities have of receiving any particular scale of grant from the Board of Education—that the Board's grant shall not be less than one-half of the net expenditure of the authority, recognised by the Board of Education as expenditure in aid of which Parliamentary grants should be made. Year by year the Board has to certify, not only to the Treasury, but to the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee, and to this House, that he has not paid grants on expenditure which it did not recognise as expenditure in aid of which Parliamentary grants should be made. That is the responsibility which rests on the Board. How is the Board to carry it out? How is the Board to judge what expenditure is proper for grant aid? The answer, as must be obvious to any persons of commonsense, is that the Board has first to consider what the needs of the area are, what the special circumstances of the area are. The right hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan) devoted a large part of his speech to asking what sinister intentions I had in my mind about "the circumstances of the area." What did it mean? he asked. He then went out of his way to read out from an official publication of the Board of Education what he described as two pages of description of the special circumstances which affect the amount of educational expenditure. He ought to know what the circum-
stances are, for it is common knowledge among all education authorities—the average size of the departments, the density of population, whether you have an average of 80 children in a department. or 120, and so on.

Mr. COVE: And the quality of the education.

Lord E. PERCY: Yes, though that is not a circumstance which can be so closely estimated. We all know what is meant. There is no need to have a sham battle about "the circumstances of the area." We all know how the Board of Education has construed the circumstances of an area in the past, and how it must continue to do so. But, in the second place, having considered the circumstances of the area, the Board of Education finds that a particular area has increased its expenditure on administration or teachers' salaries or special services by a very considerable amount during the year. The President of the Board then says, "I cannot see anything in the circumstances of your area so peculiar that it should put you very substantially above the expenditure of a number of comparable areas equally progressive, and so on. You here have to make your case. Is there anything special in the circumstances which justifies that particular heavy expenditure? "That the Board has constantly done and necessarily must do.
I need hardly deal with the question of excess over estimates. It is clear that any system of finance would break down if local authorities were consistently unreasonable in overspending their estimates. Therefore, it is clear that the Board of Education would be obliged to go through the processes named, and it has always gone through them. I notice that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) has been agreeing with what I have been saying; he has been indicating assent. But the right hon. Member for Central Newcastle and the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley thought that this was impossible; they thought that there could be no question of applying this sort of test to authorities generally. The right hon. Member for Central Newcastle said, in particular, "You talk about the circumstances of the area. What about the poor destitute
area which has a tremendously high rate? Is that a special circumstance? Are you going to prevent it engaging in new expenditure? On the contrary, you ought to allow it to go ahead if it wants to do so, precisely because it is a necessitous area, and if it will face the burden of new educational expenditure you ought to allow it to do so." The right hon. Gentleman may be surprised to learn that for some months he worked at the Board of Education under a grant Regulation which applied particularly to those necessitous areas in whose aid additional grants were made by the Board. This is the Regulation under which he worked:
The Board may disallow for the purpose of additional grant any expenditure in excess of that shown in the estimate…
In considering any claim the Board -Will have regard to (a) the standard of expenditure in other areas not receiving additional grant,… (b) the special circumstances of the area…
All the unintelligible jargon contained in this Clause is the jargon under which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Newcastle worked for nearly a year.

Mr. J. HUDSON: What is the point?

Lord E. PERCY: I will tell the hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Member for Central Newcastle said that this was giving me new power, that the Clause gave me unheard-of power, that this was a new and unheard-of autocracy. But these regulations have never been challenged; their legality has never been challenged. There has been no doubt about it in my mind, but there has been a doubt about it in the mind of the right hon. Member for Central Newcastle.

Mr. TREVELYAN: Is the Clause on my behalf?

Lord E. PERCY: The Bill is on the right hon. Gentleman's behalf, and on behalf of many other people in this country who are not fully acquainted with educational administration, and are, therefore, liable to take the right hon. Gentleman's opinion as to what are the powers of the Board. Let it be remembered that this phrase in the 1918 Act, about expenditure recognised by the Board in aid of which a Parliamentary grant should be made, is a phrase which came out of the negotiations with the local authorities from which the 1918
Act emerged. It is a diplomatic phrase. It is of the greatest importance that you should state clearly what are the implications of your financial system. What is the justification for removing these doubts? It is that the two right hon. Gentlemen have said that any attempt to impose any sort of general standard of educational expenditure is wrong. The right hon. Member for Spen Valley said that I ought to go to each individual local authority and say, "Provided your expenditure is of a type and is for an object in aid of which you ought to have Parliamentary grants, as long as the type and object of the expenditure are appropriate, I will allow you to go ahead according to your own judgment, and I will double anything that you spend."
The right hon. Member for Central Newcastle seems to take the same view. I would remind the Committee that during the last two or three months, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have been insistent that the percentage grant system was the right system, that the block grant system was wrong, that the percentage grant system was the ideal system. This new and unheard-of autocracy is the percentage grant system as it has always been administered, and as right hon. Gentlemen have recommended that it should be increasingly administered in future. I will recall what Mr. Herbert Fisher said on 17th December, 1925, in the Debate on Circular 1371. He was controverting my view that the percentage grant system had suffered compared with the block grant, and this was his solution:
An inquiry should be instituted by the President of the Board of Education into this local administrative expenditure, to see where the extravagance is, and to work out a standard of cost which would give to the Board as much control over that area of expenditure as it already exercises over the salary expenditure which is now under control."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1925; col. 1732, Vol. 189.]
He had previously pointed out that in his view salary expenditure was controlled sufficiently and fully by the Board.

Sir J. SIMON: We all know the authority of Mr. Fisher on this subject, and he is not now in the House. Did he not also say:
The Noble Lord does not propose to give these local education authorities a firm offer of 50 per cent, of their expenditure.
He proposes to deal with each local authority separately, and he thinks that [...] so doing he may satisfy all. He is a very sanguine man. My impression is that if he adheres to this course, he will throw the local administration of this country into inextricable confusion.

Lord E. PERCY: That was an argument against my proposal, and the right hon. Gentleman said that because it was impossible to deal with every local authority individually you must have these general standards of expenditure, and he strongly advocated that that should be done as a necessary part and the logical consequence, of the percentage grant system. Now perhaps I may quote another authority. That authority is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), who, speaking in this House on 25th June last, said:
There is a great deal of weakness in the connection between the State and the local authority.… The position comes to this, that we ought to do our very best to work out a unit of cost in those social services—by that I mean an analysis of what it takes to run some service compared with other districts of the country—and combine that with the percenage grant system. If you do that you will get a far better return for the expenditure of this money."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1925; cols. 1810–11, Vol. 185.]
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh then went on—he was talking of health and education—to say:
You will save the lives of far more people from tuberculosis, you will embark upon a true form of economy which very largely is being neglected at the present time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1925; col. 1811, Vol. 185.]
May I tell the Committee—because I do not think the Committee realises it at present—the extent to which the whole system at the present moment of the percentage grant in education rests on these general standards? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Newcastle spoke of Bradford. But there has always been a maximum standard for all authorities for maintenance allowances. In Bradford that maximum has been exceeded year after year, and year after year that excess expenditure has been disallowed by all Governments, not because it was not necessary in Bradford but because it was in excess of a standard which was considered to be the most that could be allowed to
authorities generally. But there is a much more serious matter. The thing that surprises me most in these controversies has been the way that teachers' organisations have objected to this question of a general standard of expenditure because, if you consider for a moment, it will become apparent that unless the widest power is given to arrive at general standards of expenditure which local authorities may not exceed the whole of the Burnham scales go by the board. What am I doing in supporting the Burnham scales?

Mr. MONTAGUE: This is not an Education Bill; this is an Economy Bill.

Lord E. PERCY: I am saying to large groups of authorities, with the widest divergence of local conditions in local services, not only "You may not pay any more than a certain scale of teachers' salaries." but I am also saying to them, "You must not pay less." The hon. Member for Caerphilly spoke about the word "comparable," and asked what was meant by it? What does the National Union of Teachers mean 7 Because, remember, it is by the powers given to me under the 1918 Act that I am able to say to a school in Eastbourne, a school in Sheffield, and a little village school in Northumberland, "You must all pay the same scale of teachers' salaries," I think I am right in doing so, but if I have only the power to do that in strictly comparable areas, my action would be unjustifiable.

Mr. COVE: Am I right in saying that there is more than one scale of salaries, that these salaries have been agreed to by the authorities through the method of conciliation and arbitration, and, in their collective capacity, with the teachers co-operating with the authorities, and the Board of Education then coming in from a national point of view? Is not than an entirely different procedure from that which is laid down in this Clause, which takes the authorities separately, whereas, in the Burnham scales, you take the whole principle of collective bargaining, embodying itself in a scale accepted by 315 authorities out of 318?

Lord E. PERCY: It is perfectly true that there is more than one scale. There are four scales, and in each scale areas which show the widest divergence
of conditions are grouped. It is necessary to do that. Now let me take the other part of the hon. Member's question. He says, "Yes, but it has all been reached by a long procedure of agreements." I quite agree that it is the best possible way of reaching any general standard to reach it by agreement and consultation before you enforce it, but my power of enforcement and my power of disallowance comes from this Act, and the Act makes no distinction between general standard reached by negotiations and a general standard reached merely according to the Board's discretion. My power rests upon the Statute, and is described in this Clause, and it is no good saying that I only use it in a few instances. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Newcastle has done the same. He has disallowed expenditure by certain authorities on salaries in excess of Scale 3. The authorities said, "The special circumstances of our area demand that we should pay more than that," but the Board of Education said, "No, we arc going to apply the general standard, even though it is a standard applied to areas largely different from yours." That has been the practice in maintenance allowances and teachers' salaries, and in almost the whole range of the Board's work. It has been urged upon us that the way to strengthen the percentage system and that the essence of that system is to extend that method of procedure, and yet the hon. Gentlemen opposite attack me when this Bill accurately represents existing regulations and accurately represents what they have consistently urged upon me as an essential part of the percentage grant.
Now, I must allude for one moment to something which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Newcastle has said. It is quite true that it was said in a moment of peroration. He asked what use was I going to make of these powers. Did they mean nothing or did they mean something? If he was in my place they would mean nothing. I have before me a letter which I will read to the Committee—a letter written from the Board of Education on the 3rd July, 1924, to Barrow-in-Furness, one of these distressed areas. That letter states:
With further reference to Mr. Cuthbertson's letter of the 3rd ultimo, and to the interview which was held at this office on the 17th ultimo, I am directed to say that after careful consideration of the representations made by the Authority in support of their request that the Board should recognise for grant the whole of the expenditure by the Authority in connection with the Provision of Meals in 1922–23, the Board regret that they do not see their way to recognise for this purpose any amount greater than the £10,000 which in the official letter of the 20th May last (F. 709/24) they have already agreed to recognise.

Mr. TREVELYAN: May I point out that that letter refers to the refusal to recognise a grant which had been refused by previous Governments under previous conditions?

Lord E. PERCY: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman correctly states the position. This was a case coming up for final decision on a final audit of the authority's expenditure. It is perfectly true that the ration was imposed by a previous Government, but the right hon. Gentleman has no doubt of his right to disallow and no doubt of his right to allow. I have revised disallowances which the right hon. Gentleman continued from his predecessors. He was as free to reverse the policy of his predecessors in that respect as I was.

Mr. TREVELYAN: It really is a quite different question. I may have been right or I may have been wrong, but it is a quite different question as to whether you maintain a disallowance that has been carried through by your predecessors or whether you make disallowances yourself? It may be wrong to say, "You cannot do that," but it is an entirely different policy to insist on disallowances under your own authority. That is not the point. I admit that I may have been quite wrong.

8.0 P.M.

Lord E. PERCY: Very well, we will leave it at that, but I am not accusing the right hon. Gentleman of being wrong. What I am saying is this, that when he has done, rightly or wrongly, a thing of that kind, he has no right to come down to this House, wearing the "white flower of a blameless life," and talking about my new and unheard-of autocracy. The right hon. Gentleman also put an important question that I must answer. He said: "What authorities have you got in mind? Have you Durham in
mind? Durham wants to go ahead." I answered a question in this House the other day stating generally to what extent I was prepared to let Durham go ahead without further question. Then London was mentioned. A letter has been written in which I have asked London very carefully to consider as to next year certain points in which their expenditure seemed to me to be excessive in relation to the expenditure of other areas—excessive not in the nature of 10 or 20 or 30 per cent., but in the nature of 300 per cent., and that is the way in which I intend to pursue this. I intend to call the attention of local authorities to expenditure which I think is not explainable on the facts before me at the present time and to ask them to justify it, and I absolutely refuse to pillory any local authority in this House as an abnormally high spender until I have exchanged views with them in that way. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why did you pillory Bradford? "] I have never pilloried Bradford. I was only showing that Bradford, I am sure quite rightly, had exceeded, and with the goodwill of the Board, the allowance. They raised no objection to expenditure being disallowed. I made no criticism of them.
I apologise for having detained the Committee so long. I quite recognise what is the real motive of the opposition to this Clause. I do not think hon. Gentlemen opposite are particularly interested in the legal and historical and administrative arguments which one is obliged to use when one is dealing with a piece of complicated legislation. What they are interested in is the question of how certain powers are to be used and whether there is any intention to use those powers harshly and unreasonably.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Why are you asking for them?

Lord E. PERCY: The answer to that I can make quite clear. There is no intention on the part of the Board or myself, I need hardly say, to use powers of this kind unreasonably or harshly or to try to pull authorities down to a low level. I quite agree that powers of this kind may be misused. I am quite prepared to say I do not agree with a good many of the disallowances which my predecessors have made in
the past. Powers of this kind may be misused, but they are necessary and will always be under such grant systems. I am asking for them now, and for a clarification and definition of these powers because people talk about the percentage grant system as if it gave perfect freedom to the local authorities, although no local authority believes it does, because the essence of the percentage grant system is not realised, and because Members, while advocating it, do not recognise it when they see it, for their own leaders have emphasised the necessity of the Boards' using these powers in order to make the percentage grant system possible. That is the reason why I am asking for these powers. It is necessary to clarify what are the necessary powers of the Board in this matter.
I would really beg hon. Members not to engage in a violent sham battle on this subject on the supposition that there is great feeling of perturbation outside among local authorities. [HON. MEMBERS: "There is ! "] Hon. Members are really entirely mistaken.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: The Association of Municipal Corporations.

Lord E. PERCY: The Association of Municipal Corporations has not, as far as I know, expressed its perturbation about this at all. The Association of Education Committees, which has shown no reluctance to pass resolutions of protest, has not protested against this Clause. I notice that in the "Times" Educational Supplement, in the "Local Authorities Notes" received from the Association of Education Committees, one finds these words:
Local authorities do not find, therefore, in Section 14 of the Economy Bill the statement of a new power conferred on the Board, and they are therefore not greatly perturbed on that score.
I think I am in as close touch as hon. Members opposite with a very large number of local authorities, and I do not find these misunderstandings and perturbations in their minds, and I believe hon. Members opposite are committing a very great mistake in so soon departing from the advice of their own leaders in regard to the percentage grant system.

Mr. COVE: The right hon. Gentleman has made a long speech, and I am afraid in no part of it did he justify or explain the proposals he now brings before the House for us to pass to-day. He took
some praise to himself and his Government for the increase in the Education Estimates that have occurred during the past two or three years. He stated, I believe, that in spite of all this crying out that the Government is cutting down education, the Education Estimates this year will be up by about £1,000,000. I want to ask him whether that £1,000,000 increase has been in line with the policy of himself and his Government, and whether that £1,000,000 increase has been got with the goodwill and assistance of this Government? As a matter of fact, that £1,000,000 increase is not a tribute to this Government at all, but is a tribute to, and is the realisation of, the vigilance of effective public opinion. The right hon. Gentleman may smile, but what did he ask for in Circular 1371? He said, "The grants that I am going to pay to you will be grants based on the expenditure of 1924–25, less 1 per cent." He also said: "I am going to subtract from you 30s. for each child under five who goes to school." This figure of £1,000,000 increase in the Estimates this year goes £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 beyond the figure aimed at in Circular 1371.

Lord E. PERCY: No. If the hon. Member will forgive me, the Circular 1371 figure was about £300,000 above the Estimates of last year, and the Estimates of this year are about £700,000 in advance of Circular 1371.

Mr. COVE: It is difficult to follow the right hon. Gentleman when he deals with figures, because I have noticed in following him very carefully that he confuses oft-times actual expenditure with the Estimates, I am bound to say this—and I am sorry to have to say it—that I could not accept any figure of £300,000 or £700,000 without the most careful verification as to whether it relates to Estimates and expenditure or is a comparison between Estimates and Estimates. The main charge I am making is still true, that the Government has been forced back from their policy in Circular 1371 and driven back on Memorandum 44 and has now been driven back to this policy which we have embodied in Clause 14 of this Bill. Therefore, I say quite frankly and definitely to the right hon. Gentleman that the only thing that has saved education from being seriously damaged and curtailed and crippled in this country
has been the vigilance of the Labour party, of the local education authorities and, as a matter of fact, the vigilance of the whole of enlightened public opinion as far as education is concerned.
We have heard from the Minister that this new Clause gives him no new powers and that it only embodies provisions which have been in existence for some years. I want, then, to ask him this—why does he want the Clause? Normally speaking, he says, "In order to meet the everyday, from month to month and from year to year necessities of the authorities, I have the full power that is going to be given me under this Clause." But I ask myself, why then does he want it? I have come to this conclusion, that he says: "Although I have had the provisions for controlling the expenditure of local authorities, this year I want behind me safeguards which will allow me to be in a position to give an extra screw to the authorities." Why does he single out this next year, 1926–27? Because during this next year he is meeting the local education authorities with a view to formulating, if possible by agreement, I understand, a new system of block grants, and he wants to use this year as a stepping-off ground in order to ascertain the amount that he is going to fix for the various local authorities under the system of block grants. In short, what he wants to be able to do under this Clause is to clear the ground in order that he may have a standard of expenditure by local authorities which would be low enough for him to apply his block grant system during the next three years.
The Clause itself is, to my mind, one of the most dangerous Clauses as far as education is concerned that has ever been embodied in a Bill. This is not an education Clause or one which directs the mind of the Board of Education to improving and inspiring local authorities to go on with their education work. It is a Clause which is directly intended to level down expenditure. The President of the Board of Education has had quotations from speeches he has made brought before his notice this evening. I want to bring another part of one of his speeches before his attention. In the speech he delivered to the local education authorities on 23rd January, 1925, he said this:
To be quite fair I must say this. One of the advantages of programmes of this kind is this, that an the present moment the system of what I call hand-to-mouth administration does tend towards rolling up commitments of the most energetic authorities in the country, when we do not know what demands we may have to meet from the slower authorities.
Then he went on to say this:
I think you will get some symmetry of expenditure under these proposals.
The proposals embodied in this Clause only refer to excessive expenditure—to expenditure which is above the average. Therefore the method by which the Noble Lord is going to get what he calls "symmetry of expenditure" is by lowering those authorities whose expenditure is to his mind excessive, or at any rate above the average expenditure of the country. From his own speech we see the inner meaning of this Clause. It is a levelling down Clause, it seeks to bring the progressive authorities down to the level of the average authority—if the Noble Lord can find out what the level of the average authority is. The Noble Lord says that he is not going to use this power harshly or to screw down authorities unreasonably. We on this side say that no Minister of Education ought to have such powers in his hands at all. No Minister ought to have power to destroy the whole spirit and balance of the 1918 Act. The first Section of that Act says:
The Board of Education shall continue to be the Department of Government charged with the superintendence of matters relating to education in England and Wales.
This is not superintendence; this is a dictatorship over the local authorities. The 1918 Act established the bodies which were to be responsible for education in this country. That responsibility was conferred, not on the Board of Education, but on the local authorities. A significant phrase in this present Bill is:
any expenditure which in the opinion of the Board is excessive.
and I say deliberately that for the President of the Board of Education to take such powers as these, is contrary to the spirit of the 1918 Act. The President of the Board of Education is no more representative of public opinion in educational affairs in this country than are the local education authorities. As a matter of fact, the local education authorities, charged as they are with the duty of
administering education under the Act, in touch as they are with local feelings and aspirations, knowing as they do the local difficulties as to rates and so forth, are the people who can most democratically represent educational opinion in the country.

Lord E. PERCY: Hear, hear.

Mr. COVE: Why, then, does the Noble, Lord come forward and seek to cut them down in this way? He says, of course, that he is not going to cut them down, but I challenge him here to say that he has not attempted to cut down—for instance—the Barry local education authority. The Barry education authority for years had a policy of small classes, and fully qualified teachers. I remember a time when, in South Wales, it was regarded as a great privilege by teachers to be in the Barry education committee's employment. The Noble Lord has told the Barry education committee that their staffing is too large and the quality of their staffing is too good. If the Noble Lord accepts what I have just said about the local authorities, what right has he to tell the Barry Committee that their staffing is too good, both in quality and quantity? I have here a communication from the West Ham authority. What has the Board of Education said to them?
With regard to Paragraph 10 of Administrative Memorandum No. 44, it is only right you should know that the standard of staffing in West Ham appears to be comparatively high. The number of teachers on 31st March, 1925, showed an increase on that of 31st March, 1924, of 10.
The President of the Board of Education is quibbling about an increase of 10 teachers. That shows the meticulous care with which the Board is going into the estimates and staffing of these authorities. The Board add:
With these you can compare the figures you since have returned to the Board upon Form 10E.
Then they go on to say:
The proportion of certificated teachers is comparatively high.
Translate that into an executive policy, so far as the Board of Education is concerned, and it means that the West Ham Authority will have to employ more supplementary teachers or uncertifieated teachers in place of certificated teachers. What educational progress can there be under such a policy? Progress in our
elementary system depends on the employment of highly qualified teachers—and not merely certificated teachers, because we are looking forward to the time when all our teachers will have had contact with the universities of this country, and a wider experience than the training colleges can give them. The same letter states to the West Ham Authority:
The proportion of small classes is comparatively high.
In the note made by the local director or secretary on this letter I find that there are classes of over 50 even in West Ham. In face of these facts, how can the Noble Lord say that the proposals in this Bill are harmless, and that he is still beneficently inclined towards education. In Portsmouth the other day a director of education of one of our large towns told me: "We in our town for years have had a policy of fully qualified teachers and small classes, but we have had an intimation from the Board that this policy will have to be reversed—and the cost is to he thrown entirely on the rates." That is the policy which the Noble Lord is strengthening and buttressing in Clause 14 of this Bill. He comes forward with these proposals, in spite of the fact that he has told the local education authorities that he will meet them in conference this year to discuss the whole grant system. In the Board's statement of policy I find:
In view of decisions covering the year 1926–27 and the discussion now proceeding with a representative committee of the local authorities in regard to the grant system for subsequent years, Circular 1371 should now be regarded as withdrawn.
In that connection I would draw attention to the attitude of the London County Council. I understand the hon. Member for Fulham (Sir Cyril Cobb) is to move an Amendment to this Clause on behalf of the London County Council, and I hope he will have the courage to do so from that side of the Committee. The London County Council have issued a circular protesting against this Clause —and I believe it is not a Labour council nor has it a Labour education committee. The circular states:
The insertion of these words in the Economy Bill prejudges an important matter—that of setting up standard costs in education—now under discussion in a
series of conferences called at the invitation of the President of the Board of Education. These conferences are attended by representatives of local education authorities, for the purpose of discussing with the Board of Education a system of education grants for future years. Among other things the conferences are discussing the question of the possibility of setting up standard costs, and in view of this important matter being thus stillsub judice, it is not desirable that the Board should prejudge the question by seeking powers in the Economy Bill to apply the principle.
There is the whole charge as far as the administration of the Board is concerned, that on any and every occasion it is breaking faith with the local authorities, and that it is making them feel that there is no stability and no certainty at all. It is quite easy to see from his own Circular why the President wants these powers. In his statement of policy he says:
It appears to the Board "—
This is said after the revised Estimates have been sent in following on the issue of Memorandum 44—
that many of the revised forecasts are still too high, and the proposed expenditure of individual authorities will require careful examination.
The estimates are too high, and will require examination, and he says, "In order that I might make no mistake and might have full legal sanction behind me to cut down the expenditure and the estimates of those local authorities that I regard as too high, I must have Clause 14 on the Statute Book." The right hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan) asked what authorities were going to be cut down. Will the Noble Lord tell us that to-night? I want to press that he should tell us to-night how many there are. He has evidently been through them, and if he will only consult with his official advisers, I am sure he can get that information quickly. According to this Circular, he has found that the expenditure is too great, and he says they must cut it down. Therefore, he knows them, and I am asking him to produce them. I am taking up the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Newcastle that the Noble Lord should produce them. What areas are they in What kind of authorities are they? Are they the big authorities? Will the right hon. Gentleman screw the West Riding? Will he curtail Sheffield, Leeds, the big powerful authorities that can bring great
public influence and pressure to bear upon him? No! The fact of the matter is that one of my objections to this Clause is that it is giving the President of the Board of Education the chance to work in the dark, to screw and squeeze and press those authorities that are not strong enough to resist the pressure and the squeeze, the weak authorities. Those are the authorities after whom he is going and from whom he will demand cuts.
It is time for this House to make up its mind whether it is going to get an educational system that is merely an answer to a clamour, or whether it is really convinced that its educational system is an absolute national necessity. There can be no long, progressive expansion of our educational service with the spirit that has been displayed by the Tory Government. We have not had anything new from them, as far as progress in education is concerned. Show us one single thing you have done, one single problem you have solved, one new adventure you have undertaken, one new experiment you have asked to be gone into in the schools of our country. You talk about the terrible problem of adolescence. The President of the Board has spoken of the great need of relating education to industry, but it is all talk, and when it comes to financing it, there is no money from the Tory Exchequer—none whatever. I agree with him, and, as a matter of fact, my position is this, that I believe the time has come, so far as education is concerned, even to forget all our preconceived notions, to forget, if you like, all that we thought and all that we talked about against vocational education, to forget all we have said about using the bias of children. Start, if you like, with this great new problem before us, with our minds as open as we possibly can, but we cannot do this, we cannot do anything unless the Board of Education is prepared to come along and say, "If we find a good solid programme and policy, we will foot the bill."
This does not foot the bill of progress. There is no progress in this at all. It is all talking about cutting down excessive expenditure. There is no sympathy in it. It cuts right across the whole function that the Board has performed ever since the Education Acts have been in existence in this country. The Education Act, 1918, said the Board should come along
to superintend, advise, and nurture. The inspectors have been used to carry new ideas from one part of the country to another, to help the progressive authorities, and stimulate the reactionary authorities; but now, all that is being reversed, and the only thing that the President of the Board of Education is doing is to cut down the progressive authorities, without stimulating the reactionary authorities. I challenge him to show me one letter on the lines of that written to West Ham that has been written to an authority that has got too few teachers or too large classes. How many letters have been issued with regard to authorities that have not enough secondary education How many letters have been written telling authorities to reduce their fees, in comparison with letters that have been written telling them their fees are not high enough or that they must remain stationary?

Lord E. PERCY: What evidence has the hon. Member of any letters telling authorities to raise their fees?

Mr. COVE: I am speaking from memory, but Plymouth. You told Plymouth. I speak from memory, but I saw a letter, I think it was to Plymouth, which the Board of Education sent them stating that their fees were to remain the same as they were when the authority wanted to reduce them.

Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member is entirely inaccurate, and when he makes accusations I wish that he would verify the facts.

Mr. COVE: Will the Noble Lord tell this Committee that he has sent out a letter telling authorities to reduce the fees?

Lord E. PERCY: I shall not give any answer to anything the hon. Member says, now that I know that, when he makes an accusation, he makes it just with the hope that he is not going to be caught up, knowing that he has no foundation for it at all.

Mr. COVE: I am sorry I am hurting the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord, when I talk on education, must interrupt me, sometimes as many as 12 times during my speech, but I am going to ask him, when he says there is no harm in this Clause—I intend to be gentle, and kind,
and good, and sweet-natured as far as education is concerned—if he has taken any action, where fees have been high, to reduce those fees. Has he taken any action, where classes have been very large, to reduce those classes? Has he taken any action to stimulate local education authorities to go on with their secondary education? No. This Clause embodies the whole policy and spirit of the administration of the Board of Education, and that spirit is a restricting one. It just expands as far as public opinion will make it expand, and, as far as we are concerned, we say quite deliberately, having regard to Circular 1371 and to Memorandum 44, and having regard to the large number of individual letters that have gone out to local authorities, that we cannot trust the Government in this respect, that we cannot trust the present Minister of Education. He is a pathetic figure. Here he is, coming along and going to administer a Clause in regard to which he really seems to give us the impression that he does not feel that it is wanted, that he would not like to use it. He is a pathetic figure, driven on, I presume, by the hard-hearted, ruthless Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the Noble Lord desires to convince us that his intentions are sincere, that he is convinced about the efficiency of education, there is only one thing for him to do, and that is for him to withdraw this Clause, and, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not have it, to withdraw himself from the Ministry of Education.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I did not intend to take part in this discussion, but the speech of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove) induces me to make a remark or two. That speech was very largely compounded of imagination and overstatement. The hon. Member would have us believe that all the progress in education has been due to the Labour party. [An HON. MEMBER: "It has not been due to you!"] The party to which I belong can very well afford to listen in silence to that, accusation, because it is to the Conservative party that nearly all the great advance in national education is due, and it is not possible for hon. Members opposite to deny that.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think either that it is possible to deal with it on this Amendment.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I must apologise. The hon. Member for Wellingborough challenged the President of the Board of Education to produce any measure of progress he has supported. In Canada, last autumn, I met several teachers from this country who had been exchanged with teachers from Canada, and I met Canadians who had just returned from this country. That is a useful experiment that is succeeding, and has received full support from the present President of the Board of Education. I could mention many others. The hon. Member said that the credit for any progress that has been made is due to vigilant public opinion directed by the vigilant Labour party. Of course, every Measure is due, in the long run, to public opinion, but as to the progress being due to the Labour party, that, I think, would be a very difficult proposition to uphold by facts. What are the facts? The hon. Member does not, deny that there has been considerable progress in education during the past four years. And who has been responsible for the Education Estimates?

The CHAIRMAN: That is an argument more relevant to the Education Estimates. I understand this Clause deals with the relations of the Board of Education and the local authorities. If the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove) went beyond that—I do not think he did—and it necessitates an answer, that is justifiable; but it seems to me that before we know where we are, we shall be in the midst of a Debate on the Education Estimates.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I regret I shall not have a complete opportunity of answering the hon. Member, but I think it is undoubted that he did say that any progress was due to the Labour party. Possibly I may be allowed to point out, that in the past four years there has been a diminution of the size of classes, that there are 240,000 fewer children in the schools, and that, there are thousands more teachers in the schools. Above all, the position of the teacher has been secured, and secured by my right hon. Friend. Their position has been secured in the matter of pensions by the Superannuation Act of last year, which is a more liberal measure than has obtained in any other country in the world. Salaries, too, have been secured by the action of the President in making grants depend upon the
Burnham scale. The hon. Member has said that the President wishes for this Clause in order that he may squeeze the weaker authorities. Is it not the case that the efficiency of the schools under every authority will be carefully taken into account? Is it not a fact that full consideration will be given to the reports of the inspectors of the Board as to the condition of the schools? I think my right hon. Friend will corroborate that, and I do not think there is the slightest fear that weaker authorities, if they are efficient in the way of producing good results in their schools, will be in the slightest danger. With regard to the effect on local authorities, the policy of my right hon. Friend is to give the local authorities freedom. An immense amount of present useless administrative work will be cut away, and that freedom is of the greatest value. The policy of my right hon. Friend seems to be a policy of economy, it is true, but a policy of economy combined with freedom and progress.

Mr. R. MORRISON: I will not follow the last speaker, except to say that he is rapidly gaining in this House, in the matter of education, a reputation for defending every reactionary proposal the Government propose. The speech of the President of the Board of Education has followed almost the whole line he has taken ever since he began to lose his prestige as President of the Board of Education. Exactly the same speech was delivered when Circular 1371 was discussed in the House. According to the right hon. Gentlemen, everybody except himself has misunderstood his proposals. If anyone is protesting against those proposals, it is because they do not understand them. He cannot understand why any teacher should be protesting against any of these proposals, and as for local authorities, he holds up his hands in horror. The proposals, according to his dictum to-night, do not mean anything in particular; they are only to satisfy a few doubts. In other words, Parliament having nothing to do at present, and an Economy Bill coming on, he thought he had better take advantage of it, and put this thing in. Governments after Governments, he argues, have been doing the same thing, but it has never been on the Statute
Book, and so the Noble Lord thought that, as there was an Economy Bill coming on, perhaps another additional Clause would not make much difference, and he might as well put it in. He used exactly the same words as he used in the Debate on Circular 1371. He said it was a sham battle then, and he said it twice again to-day. He said exactly the same thing about the opposition put up in this House to Circular 1371, but the opposition was so strong he had to withdraw the Circular.

Lord E. PERCY: It was on Memorandum 44 that I said that.

Mr. MORRISON: If the Noble Lord says now that his statement applied to Memorandum 44 and not to Circular 1371, even that has been superseded. If the Noble Lord does not assent to that, let me read from the Circular, which is without name or number:
The communications which they will address to each authority on the basis of its forecast will supersede the general direction contained in. Administrative Memorandum No, 44.
I do not know why the Noble Lord persists in saying that this is a sham battle. If he were as closely in touch with local authorities, the teachers, and the parents of children in this country as he continually professes to be, he would know it was far from being a sham battle. As a matter of fact this looks as if it was going to be an interesting year for education. The Noble Lord has definitely pledged himself and his Government to continuity in education. As soon as this Government took office I asked the President of the Board of Education what his policy was going to be, and I will quote one sentence from the Noble Lord's reply. I had stated that there was a vague reference in the first King's Speech, and that it might mean anything or nothing, and this is what the Noble Lord said:
The one thing that the particular passage in the King's Speech does mean is this: That when we say continuous ' we mean ' continuous.' 
For the first nine months the Noble Lord was an unqualified success as President of the Board of Education. His policy was good and his speeches were numerous. His colleagues backed him up and on the 29th June, 1925, we had an extraordinary speech from the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is the real author of this
Clause and of this Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer on that occasion, in addressing his constituents at Woodford, said:
Education in a country like theirs was absolutely vital not only to progress but to peace. The foundation of British civilisation was the steady active spread of education in all its forms. Those who thought that they could become richer or more stable as a country by stinting education and crippling the education of their young people were a most benighted class of human being. It was absolutely necessary that thrift and economy should be practised in every branch of their services. Value for money must be achieved, but the course of education must never be set back. It must roll forward from one generation to another. Only in that way would the people of these small islands be fitted to work together in amity and goodwill, and sustain the responsibility of the British Empire and preserve unbroken its glorious continuity of history.
Soon after that speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer began to put his spoke in, and from that moment the stock of the President of the Board of Education began to slump. In their speeches in the country they have ceased to refer to the educational policy of the Government. The Noble Lord has got himself into trouble since by introducing Circular 1371, and they have left him quite a lonely figure, and but for the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) who finds it difficult to keep awake by his side, his position would be very much like the boy who stood on the burning deck. Every local education authority in the country is against him; the same applies to our great educational authorities, and there is a steadily rising tide of indignation against this policy among the parents of the children.

The CHAIRMAN: Those remarks would be more appropriate when we are considering the Vote in the Estimates for the salary of the Noble Lord, but they are not in order at this stage.

Mr. MORRISON: The point I am trying to make is that the Noble Lord began with Circular 1371, which caused such a storm of indignation that he had to withdraw it. Then Memorandum No. 44 had to be superseded, and now by these proposals the Noble Lord comes forward to make his third attempt which is possibly based on a belief in the old saying that "The third time will be lucky." His first policy was announced
in a circular which was unnamed and unnumbered, and now the exact words of that circular have been copied and embodied not in an Education Bill, but in the Economy Bill. In all these previous attempts the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been in the background, and he is still there as far as this Debate is concerned, but what of these proposals? Are these not the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? The Noble Lord may try to deny this, but at the beginning of this Parliament I asked several questions about his policy, and I said that I hoped he would be strong enough to stand up against the Treasury should they attempt to interfere. On that occasion the Noble Lord said:
The hon. Member was also afraid that we might be frightened by the Treasury. I want the House to remember this, that I am responsible for anything in education which may be put forward by the Government. I do not want anyone to say, This is the Treasury, it is not the President.' If I do anything which hon. Members do not like, then they should blame me and not my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Lord PERCY: Hear, hear!

Mr. MORRISON: Apparently the Noble Lord still holds those sentiments. He has evidently decided that it suits him to adopt the role of a martyr, and we must all admire the readiness with which he is willing to sacrifice his own political career in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may flourish. Is it worth it for the Noble Lord to sacrifice his own career in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may prosper? When anything does happen to this country and when this Government breaks up and some other alternative Government is being formed, I am sure we shall find the Chancellor of the Exchequer making overtures to be a member of it, judging from what he is doing now. What is the main proposal? It is that the Board of Education shall not be bound to recognise any expenditure which in the opinion of the Board is excessive having regard to: (1) the circumstances of the area of the authority; (2) the general standard of expenditure in other areas; (3) unreasonable excess of any estimate of expenditure made by the authority. I suggest that the first two of these proposals are thoroughly reactionary.
Even the Noble Lord has not claimed that they are progressive, and in plain language their effect will be to punish the poor for their poverty. The poor districts, where there is much unemployment, irregular employment, poverty, bad housing, and low wages, are the districts where a high expenditure upon education is vital. All those districts need nursery schools, play centres, clinics, the feeding of necessitous children, medical services, and special schools, and they have a good many abnormal children to deal with. These are not luxuries, but vital necessities. We could all understand it if the Government said: "These services are costing too much and they are only patchy palliatives—we propose to attack the root of the trouble, sweep the slums away, raise the standard of living, and initiate great employment schemes so that these things will not be necessary." But that is not the policy of the Government. The children in the poor industrial districts are the innocent victims of a vicious industrial system. The local education authorities do their utmost to counteract the sordid conditions under which they are rearer. Instead of encouraging them and wishing them God-speed in their work, the Government now propose to restrict them in order to save money, and they are punishing the children of the poor for the poverty of their parents.
The second proviso is equally bad. It is having regard to the general standard of expenditure in other areas. This means dragging progressive authorities down to a lower level. Under this part of the Clause, local education authorities are to suffer, not because they have been extravagant, but because other authorities have not proceeded so far. How will it work? May I put one case to the Noble Lord, a case in which, as he knows, I am keenly interested. I have always, since I have been a Member of the House of Commons, on whichever side I have sat, taken an interest in the special schools of this country. Let me give the Noble Lord some quotations from the Statistics of Public Education in regard to special schools. This brings out the real point in regard to this Clause. I find, from the last volume of the Statistics of Public Education which has been issued, that there are 526 special schools in England and Wales. Of these, no fewer than 174 are main-
tained by the London County Council, and, of the 39,927 special children for whom accommodation is provided, London provides for 14,304. These schools are day schools or boarding schools for special children, and they provide education for the blind, deaf, mentally defective, physically defective, tubercular and delicate children.
These figures are even more important than they seem when this further point is taken into consideration, that, of the 526 schools I have mentioned, 135 are tabulated as not maintained by local education authorities. This means that, of the 391 maintained by local education authorities in England and Wales, London maintains no fewer than 174. London has 33 schools for the blind, while the whole of the other authorities in England and Wales have only 19 amongst them. London has 12 schools for the deaf, as against 25 among all the other authorities. For the mentally defective, London has 80 schools, as against 103 among other authorities. In the case of the physically defective, London has 35 schools, and the rest have 25 between them. The provision for tuberculous and delicate children in London does not show so marked a contrast at present, but of the total of 58 schools provided by local authorities, 14 are provided by the London County Council. Under this Clause, on the ground that the general standard of London is far in excess of other authorities, the Board has power to inflict irreparable damage upon this splendid system of special schools and upon this provision for abnormal children which has been built up in London.
9.0 P.M.
The Noble Lord cannot deny the powers that he will obtain under this Clause, which will enable him to inflict damage upon those schools. I am not going to be so unkind as to suggest that he is going to do so, but, at the same time, I must admit that I should have had much more confidence in making that statement a few months ago than I have now. During the last few months the Noble Lord has shown himself a mere puppet in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, because of that, there is no saying what he may do. I suppose the Noble Lord will call this policy the "standardisation of expenditure." In this connection it is somewhat interesting to make a comparison with Circular No. 1371, and see how the Noble Lord has
changed his policy once again. In Circular 1371 he wanted to give the local education authorities a free hand. He complained that they were tied hand and foot, and had not a free hand. He said, in Circular No. 1371:
Any attempt to impose detailed restrictions on expenditure would not only be incompatible with the spirit of the times, but would entail a further complication of administration. The Board are convinced that a change in the grant system is essential if local authorities are to exercise their own judgment.
Now it seems that he has changed his policy again and wants the Board to tie the hands of the local education authorities. If he is aiming at standardisation of expenditure, how comes it that there is no countervailing provision to bring backward authorities up? He seems to be only asking for power to drag progressive authorities down, without any power to bring backward authorities up. It seems to me that this is a policy of insanity. One of the principal newspapers of the Noble Lord's own party described it as a policy of insanity. Let me quote from one of the principal Conservative newspapers in this country:
The idea of curtailing the already inadequate facilities for self-improvement existing in England, while by common consent a great and sustained effort of organised intelligence is wanted to pull British industry on to the level again, is an idea straight out of a lunatic's head.
That is from the "Observer."

Lord E. PERCY: Who is the lunatic?

Mr. MORRISON: The Noble Lord asks, Who is the lunatic? According to the dictum he laid down, he insists on taking all the blame himself, and refusing to put it on the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Lord E. PERCY: I have not curtailed facilities.

Mr. MORRISON: If the powers in this Clause are entirley innocent, and if the Noble Lord does not want to economise and does not want to curtail educational expenditure, what are they doing in an Economy Bill introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? The Noble Lord persists in saying flippantly that they do not mean anything in particular, but he knows that he has his tongue in his cheek in making any such suggestion.
This is an Economy Bill. One would understand that there might be something in the suggestion if this were part of an Education Bill, if it were part of some re-arrangement; but these are two Clauses of an Economy Bill, introduced for the deliberate purpose of trying to save money and cut down expenditure.
Apart from the insanity of this policy, there is its instability. This morning when I left home I passed, as I have to pass almost every morning on my way to the omnibus, a brick wall on which there still remains, battered by the rain but still hanging bravely on, a poster saying:
Vote for the Conservative candidate and stability.
It is a relic of the last General Election. Whatever stability we may have got from this Government, we have no stability in education. There is not a local authority in the. United Kingdom to-day that knows whether it is standing on its head or its heels. There is not a local authority that knows where it is from day to day, from week to week, or from month to month. Things have changed so rapidly since the Noble Lord threw his first bombshell, No. 1371, at the heads of the local authorities, that no local authority knows where on earth it is from day to day. It seems to me that, in this Economy Bill, this particular Clause 14 is the most iniquitous of all the proposals in the Bill. I will tell the Noble Lord why. I think it is the worst Clause in the Bill because, while the previous Clauses rob grown-up people, this Clause robs the children. I did not take part in any of the Debates last week in regard to the robbery of the funds of the approved societies, but it might reasonably be argued, and I am surprised that no hon. Member on the other side put the argument, that, after all, if the other Clauses of this Bill rob the funds of the approved societies, it serves the grown-up people right for voting for this Government. They elected it, they asked for it, and they are now getting what they asked for. But to penalise the children for the poverty and ignorance of their parents seems to me to be a contemptible policy, and for this reason I oppose this particular proposal.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I have listened with interest to the various speeches that have been made against this Clause. The
last speaker said that it was robbing the children, but I see nothing of that kind in it. It appears to me that it is a Clause giving some power to the Board of Education to prevent extravagance. I think that thrift is one of the greatest possible virtues. It is considered to be one of the staple characteristics of my own nation, and it is a very useful part of education for the present generation if you can inculcate it. If there is one thing the public are worried about—I am not speaking of the Teachers' Union, or of those organised bodies that intimidate Members of Parliament, with one or two exceptions; I am not speaking of them, but of the mass of the people—they are very much concerned about the system of education, because they are pretty well satisfied that it is a gigantic imposture. The more money is spent, the less education is given. You hear nothing from right hon. Gentlemen but expenditure, expenditure, expenditure. If you do not spend money you are limiting education. There is a celebrated character in the "Heart of Midlothian "who has the same mentality as the right hon. Gentleman who spoke. It is true he is not held forth by the late novelist as a particularly vivacious mental specimen. When any question of difficulty emerges he had one simple question to put. He used to ask, "Will siller dae't?" That is to say can it be remedied by the expenditure of money? This seems to be the problem of education with these right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that if you spend more and more money you will get better education. I do not believe in it. I do not believe the educational system of Scotland was built up in the past by the expenditure of money. It was built up by the character of the individual teachers and the freedom that was given to them. They were not interfered with in the way they are now. There was no exact code laid down. They were given the chance to develop and to pick out the particular pupils they thought worthy of higher education. There was no attempt to treat all individual specimens of boys and girls as if they were exactly the same.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is approaching the relations of the Ministry and local -authorities by rather a roundabout road.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I have been led away a good deal by the arguments used on the other side. This Bill, as far as I can see, is not going to restrict the activities of local authorities. It is merely that the Board of Education is to have the right to deal with unreasonable local authorities. I regret very much that the right hon. Gentleman departed from Circular 1371. It would be very much better if under the block grant system local authorities were allowed so much a head and told to educate the children in the way they thought best, and not be interfered with. If you are going to have a percentage system giving the local authorities the right to call on the Treasury for 50 per cent. of all that is expended, surely it is going back to the most elementary maxim that he who pays the piper has the right to some say in what tune is to be played. [An HON MEMBER: "All the say!"] No, it is only part of it. The local authority here has all its rights preserved. There is no other definition on those benches of a progressive local authority except one that spends the most, without considering whether it is getting value for its money. The public is exceedingly restive of the expenditure because in many parts they feel that they are not getting value for it. I quarrel with the Minister for Education in the matter of the Burnham scale, which is the same in every place. In some places, in remote parts, the people have very small incomes, and in others you have a higher standard of living, and more expenses, and the equal -treatment of unequal people under unequal circumstances is the greatest injustice. It is entirely wrong to treat them as if they were all under identical circumstances in the different places.
I shall be pleased if there is going to be some supervision. I do not say I want to cut down in the sense of cutting down legitimate expenses. I believe it is in the general interest that some general supervision should be exercised over education authorities, and it should be in the interest, not only of the children, but of the public, and the right person to exercise that supervision is undoubtedly the Minister of Education, who can satisfy the public apprehension as to the expenditure that is being engaged in. If you advertise for a boy for an office, or try to get some assistance, it is very few intelligent boys that you get. I believe
that is largely due to this, that under the present system instead of the school education brightening and increasing the powers of observation and the mentality of the boys, a great deal of it tends to stupify them and make them much duller than when they entered the school. We see the bright little children in their earlier years at school, but after five or six years they seem less intelligent than they were the day they went in. [An HON. MEMBER "Why not abolish education? "] I would abolish conscription in education, and I am opposed to conscription in other ways. Only the other day a graduate of Oxford University, with first-class honours, who believed that seven years was the right age at which to commence a child's education, was summoned for not sending his child to school at five years.

The CHAIRMAN: The age limit really does not arise.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: It is part of the extravagance that the Minister of Education may have to control. I have in my possession a summons served on this gentleman. That is where a great deal of extravagance is engaged in. What you want is nursery schools for the poorer districts with a motherly woman to look after the children instead of highly-salaried teachers.

Mr. D. M. COWAN: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member who has just spoken. Some of his statements are so palpably absurd that it is quite unnecessary to reply to them. We have heard a good deal this afternoon of averages. The one average about this Debate has been the average length of the speeches. I think it is unfair to the later speakers that the earlier speakers should take up on an average half an hour. I can promise those hon. Members who are wishing to speak after me that my remarks will be well below the average length of the speeches which have been delivered.
I attribute no malevolent intention to the President of the Board of Education, but I do regret that he has allowed himself to be a party to the introduction of a Clause like this into what is presumed to be an Economy Bill. No matter what the President of the Board of Education may say in support of this Clause, its passing will undoubtedly be taken by re-
actionary authorities as a charter for them to do the least possible for the children of their district. So far as one can judge, this proposal has very few real friends. Even in the Press, quite apart from the rather doubtful supporter already quoted, we find one of the most ardent and consistent supporters of the Government in its to-day's issue saying that:
The reductions proposed in Mr. Churchill's Economy Bill are hardly worth considering.
Of all the reductions proposed, I take it that the meanest in the sense of the smallest, and in the sense that one cannot take it as involving any principle of finance, will be any economy effected in this Clause. If the promises and professions of the Prime Minister and of the President of the Board of Education are given effect to, not only will there be no true economy in this Clause, but there will be very little saving of any kind. I am sorry that the President of the Board of Education, who began his occupation of office so brilliantly is rather having the lustre taken off his reputation. His speeches on the various occasions we have discussed his circulars and economies have been vigorous but by no means convincing. He will have, of course, the support of the majority behind him—I should not quite venture to say an intelligently acquiescent majority—and he will have the satisfaction of getting this Clause made part of the Bill.
I have no doubt that he will find that not only does the Clause not achieve economies, but that the only thing that it does achieve will be disorganisation among the authorities and uncertainty among all those interested in education. These will be the results of this Clause, and not any saving as regards expense in the central or local authorities. This uncertainty is not confined to England and Wales. A much more important matter is that it extends to Scotland. All the threats with regard to educational expenditure in England and Wales have their repercussion in Scotland. Therefore, I want to ask the Government what part has the Secretary of State for Scotland in all these proposed regulations with a view to economy? Where is the Secretary of State for Scotland now? He ought to be here in order that we may put questions
to him to give him a chance of exculpating himself, if he possibly can. We have a Scottish Member of the Government present, the hon. and learned Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. F. C. Thomson), and I invite him, if the Secretary for Scotland is not available, to be prepared before the end of this discussion to explain where Scotland stands in this matter.

Mr. MAXTON: And put some life into the Debate.

Mr. COWAN: And put some reality into the Debate. The real question which suggests itself to me is this, is it worth while that we should have these proposals put forward when, according to the statement of the President of the Board of Education, they are really not going to achieve what is the primary object of this Bill? The result will simply be a harvest of uncertainty. Nothing is more fatal to a sound, progressive system of education than that from year to year people should be wondering how it is to be financed or what arrangements are to hold with regard to this or that. Behind all these economy proposals, behind the wording of this Clause, there is, undoubtedly, a proposal to put into force at some very early date the block grant system. On at least two occasions in this the very distinguished and Noble Lady who occupies the position of Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education has instanced Scotland as an example in favour of the block grant system. As one who has had very considerable experience and knowledge of Scottish education, I say that by no possibly reasonable interpretation of the term "block grant" can the system of grant in Scotland be so designated at the present time. It is not a sum handed out to the authorities with which they have to make the best of things. It is a sum which varies from year to year, according to varying factors, the number of teachers, the number of pupils and other factors. Therefore, I want to state on behalf of Scottish educational opinion, as far as I can speak for it, that if the Government are to go on the analogy of a satisfactory block grant system, they will require to look elsewhere than to Scotland.
I appeal once more that this House should have a voice raised from the Government Bench on behalf of Scotland.
I do not think it is fair that in a matter where the Union of England and Scotland really comes into effect, there should be this silence from those who represent Scottish opinion in the Government. Therefore, I ask my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Aberdeen to remove himself from the Debate long enough to find the Secretary for Scotland and to ask him to come here and tell us what part he has played and what acquiescence he has given to the proposals put forward now. I shall keep my promise of not going beyond the average length of the speeches which have been made.

Mr. BARR: I only wish to reply to one of the arguments of the President of the Board of Education, to the effect, as I understood him, that he was taking no additional powers under this Clause, and that the Clause is declaratory and for the removal of doubts. I should like the Committee to go back to the 8th February last when the Noble Lady, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, made a statement with respect to the ever-growing contributions of the Exchequer, and to the lack of full power of control. She used these words:
….that over the large sums that have annually to be voted, the Board cannot exercise control except in certain particulars, and that there are large parts of the expenditure of the authorities which are incurred without the previous sanction of the Board."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1926; col. 765, Vol. 191.]
1 think that in these words we find the key to the purpose that lies behind this Clause, and we find a contradiction of the statement that the Clause is purely declaratory and that the President of the Board of Education is not taking any additional powers. As the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. D. M Cowan) said, we in Scotland are very keenly interested in this matter. Our system of finance is, as the Committee knows, materially different, and yet it cannot be described as a block grant system. Further, it is dependent entirely on the percentage system, and the great bulk of our finance comes in the form of eleven-eightieths of the expenditure in England. Therefore, if you reduce, crimp and curtail the expenditure in England, you famish and starve education in Scotland. So much is this so that many of the education authorities arc carrying very
drastic resolutions. For example, the Fife Education Authority at a recent meeting passed the following resolution:
That the present method of allocating the Government grant for education to Scotland is unsatisfactory and dangerous to the continuity of our educational progress; that the amount of this grant ought no longer to be dependent upon that made to England but should be determined with due regard to the circumstances, needs and ideals of Scotland.
We have a Circular from the Scottish Education Department calling upon us to exercise in Scotland the like economy that was being practised in England, otherwise it would fall upon the rates. This Circular, Circular 69, says:
The important changes which are imminent on the other side of the Border cannot but have a repercussion of which it behoves your authority to take most serious note. The imposition of a limit on the Grants-in-Aid for England and Wales will automatically produce a similar effect on the money to be paid into the Education (Scotland) Fund. It follows that any fresh responsibilities undertaken by your locality in the next three years will have to be financed mainly, or it may be entirely, from savings, if a rise in the education rate is to be avoided. Excessive rating is admittedly no whit less burdensome, no whit less detrimental to the interests of the community as a whole, than is excessive taxation.
Therefore, if the grants here are curtailed the result will be in Scotland that the burden will fall increasingly upon the rates. That will have serious effects upon the questions of accommodation and of size of classes. In the recent Report of the Inspector for Scotland, which I forbear to quote, comment is made upon the vast expanse of expenditure that is still needed in this matter and to prepare for 1928 when classes are to be reduced to not more than 50. The hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) spoke of unreasonable authorities, and I gathered from him that all progressive authorities were unreasonable authorities. He spoke of calling the tune, but some tunes are to be forbidden altogether if he has his will. For instance, in Scotland, it is in the power of every authority to give free books in the schools. Some have used that power, others have not, hut when a new burden is thrust upon the rates, as the result of educational economy in England and as a result of
tightening up the grants, all hope will vanish of carrying out great reforms like that.
As to bursaries, it is fair to say that some progressive authorities have resisted the temptation and are still giving bursaries under the old scale, but an authority so progressive as Edinburgh has been so affected by this cry of economy that they are steadily reducing their bursaries, both in number and in amount. In four years they have cut down bursaries from £13,643 to £9,443, a decrease of £4,200, and, if we take their estimate, we find that for the coming year they have been reduced by—1,087. The hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire spoke as if it were a crime in modern education that we were treating boys and girls alike, and that we were paying attention to the poorly equipped, mentally and physically. I should like to answer him by a quotation from a Conservative paper, the"Glasgow Herald," of the 4th February, 1922. That paper says:
At present the teaching profession has apparently a variety of means at its command for segregating the mentally superior from their inferiors. What is not yet recognised is that it is the latter who require the higher education. If they are the stupid then it is they who are the menace to the world's progress. To stamp them as stupid and then assume that your work is done is to cease yourself from mental fight and prove that stupidity in the school is not confined to the scholars.
What we have been doing is simply that, instead of the old ladder, we are seeking now to erect a broad stairway upon which the young people can walk abreast to positions of honour and of power. The hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire said that he would abolish conscription, that he was opposed to it. in many things, in the political levy and other things. I know I would transgress if I followed him in that, but I have many quotations from him in which, in the days of the War, he supported conscription and would have put all conscientous objectors in the front line. His presence and his spech is a sign that we have still to contend with reaction in Scotland. We object to these powers because they will be used to strengthen the reactionary element in Scotland. I might commend these words as expressing the present view of the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire. They were used in"Black-
wood's Magazine"as far back as 1839, when it was opposing an Education Bill:
That Education would make the working people uneasy and restless, that ignorance was the parent of contentment, and that the only education which could be, fitly and safely given to them was a religious education which would render thorn patient, humble, and moral, and relieve the hardship of their present lot by the prospect of a bright eternity.
I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire is not present to hear his opinions. He sought to curtail education"to suit the siller"as he called it. I would remind him of an old poetic adage, exceedingly applicable to instances of education in Scotland as well as in England:
There was a man, and half the world did count him mad,
The more he gave away, the more he had.
And the more you give away in education the more you have in the real wealth of the nation. It is small comfort to known that we are to have even some increase over the past years when we know the expansive increase that is necessary to carry on the work of education both in England and in Scotland. I would weary the Committee if I were to give them for four decades the progressive figures in Scotland to show what poor comfort it is to be told, as we were in the Scottish Education Circular, that there will be little diminution in the three coming years from the present year. In 1890, the expenditure on education in Scotland, according to the annual report by the Accountant for Scotland to the Scottish Education Department, amounted to £1,447,000. Ten years later it was £2,283,000; in 1910, it was £3,747,000; in 1920, it was £4,712,000, and in the last report it was £10,518,000. In education you cannot stand still. To stand still is to go back. I remember reading the story of an Arctic exploration in which four explorers walked with great pains about four miles a day, but after a time they were grieved to discover that while they had walked all that distance northward thy were further south than when they began. The currents were carrying them to the south all the time. The Noble Lord has modified his pace. He is going at four miles a day. But in this matter if you do not go forward you are really going back. Stagnation is re-action. It is death in education. The"Glasgow
Herald," in the article to which I referred, quoted Blake:
Expect poison from the standing water.
I do not think the President of the Board of Education desires these powers to curtail expenditure to the extent provided in this Clause, nor do I believe the Noble Lady who is associated with him at the Board of Education desires really to take this step backwards in education. She is herself a high example of brilliant academic distinction. I believe they are doing this at the dictation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is calling for his tune and begs them to sing a low minor in order that he on Budget day may sing a paean in a high key. The Noble Lady when she last spoke in this House said it was only a. temporary halt. Everyone knew, she said, that the financial conditions of the country require a temporary halt in the policy of grants. The Government are in the wilderness and they have to obey the law of the wilderness, that so long as the cloud of finance which the Chancellor has raised tarries over their tent they will sit still, they will not journey. They have to obey the law of the wilderness
if the cloud were not taken up, then they journeyed not till the day that it was taken up.
It will not be easy to resume even if the cloud is lifted. You are clogging your steps for the future. I can see the march being taken up again in this connection, but it will not be until the Noble Lord has passed over to this side of the House and his place is occupied by a party with a passion and a zeal for education, who will place the best resources of the State at the command of education; that has no Super-tax relatives to consult and no Member for Oxford University who regards the money devoted to education as"money thrown into the sea '' sitting behind it. The Noble Lady said — and I am free to say this because I have nothing but what is complimentary to say regarding her in this matter—that she hopes at an early date they will resume their high purpose. She hopes very shortly to be able to resume the fulfilment of a programme to which, as she said,"We attach the greatest possible importance." The Government expect a bright to-morrow. This Government is going to do better to-morrow. When we rise night after night the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Treasury says,"To-morrow,""Tomorrow,""To-morrow," to Bills that are coming forward.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow, Creeps in their petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all their yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: Those who heard the speech of the hon. Member opposite will have observed that he defended these provisions because of the powers which he said they gave to the President of the Board of Education. That was his line of defence, but the greater part of the speech of the Noble Lord the President of the Board of Education was to point out that the Clause gave the President no powers beyond what he already possesses. Personally, I agree with the argument of the hon. Member, and find it difficult to believe that the Government would have insisted on the insertion of this particular Clause but for the fact that they know, or at least they expect and hope, that the result of its passing will be that the President of the Board of Education will be in a stronger position when seeking to curtail the expenditure of local authorities. That is obviously the case. The provisions of Section 118 of the Education Act, 1921, which re-enacted Section 44 of the Act of 1918, provides that the total sums paid to local education authorities out of money pro vided by Parliament and the local education account in aid of elementary education or higher education, as the case may be, shall not be less than one-half of the net expenditure of the authority recognised by the Board of Education as expenditure in aid of which Parliamentary grants should he paid to the authority. Sub-section (2) of the present Clause is clearly contrary to that provision; and not only Sub-section (2). I submit that the grant of discretionary powers to the President of the Board of Education, provided for in this Clause, is also contrary or may be used in order to torpedo the financial assistance which was provided by the Act of 1921.
The Clause gives the President of the Board of Education discretion to control the expenditure of local authorities
not by reference to the needs of the local authority alone, but also by reference to what is called the general standard of education in other areas." I should be surprised to hear of any authority of standing who would say that that power is now vested in the President of the Board. I submit that this discretion is a complete departure from the fiscal arrangements which were embodied in the Acts of 1918 and 1921 and it is a power which may be used in a manner which might do infinite and permanent harm to the cause of education. A reactionary President of the Board of Education, anxious to persuade himself or being persuaded by other members of the Government to save money in the realm of education, might use this discretionary power for the purpose of lowering the standard of local education authorities throughout the country to that of the most backward authority. This is a discretion which should not be vested in any Minister of the Crown. It is a discretion which I am not prepared to see vested in any member of the present Government, though the Noble Lord will forgive me if I say that I would as soon see it invested in him as in any other member of the present administration. The record of the Government in regard to education culminating in this Clause is a most disappointing one. The Noble Lord has not been really fair in his treatment of local education authorities. When he assumed office he went up and down the country making admirable speeches calling upon local education authorities to prepare and send in programmes to cover a period of years, to advance the cause of education in their areas, to remedy all defects and go in for improvement.
When the Noble Lord made those speeches he knew that if the local education authorities responded to that appeal the expenditure of money would be involved. He also knew that the local education authorities were preparing programmes on the assumption that they would receive grants on the same basis as in the past. The Noble Lord went about calling upon the local education authorities to join him in a great crusade and campaign against all the forces of indifference and reaction in the educational life of the country. They responded to the appeal, or a large
number of them did, and many members of local education authorities incurred a. great deal of local unpopularity and certainly devoted a lot of their time and energy to responding to the appeal. They came forward and followed the Noble Lord's flag, and as soon as they did so he dropped a bombshell amongst them. The treatment of the local education authorities was like the treatment meted out to his men by a certain notorious general:
He marched them up to the top of the hill,
Then marched them down again,
And when they were up they were up,
And when they were down they were down,
But when they were only half way up
They were neither up nor down.
That is the position of the local authorities in the country to-day—they are neither up nor down. They do not know where they stand in regard to the treatment to be meted out to them by the Board of Education, and this particular Clause has added to their difficulties. The Noble Lord is underrating the anxiety which is felt amongst educationists, just as he is understating the effect of this provision of the Bill. There is no doubt as to how this discretion is to be exercised. It is significant that the Noble Lord, in a speech to local education authorities in the early part of last year, said:
I do not want any education authority to think that it cannot put forward a programme representing all that it really does want to do, for fear that the Board will try to cut it down in order to equal it with some less progressive authority. There is no such suggestion or intention in our mind at all.
It is extraordinary that, if there is no such intention in the mind of the Government, they should seek power to do this very thing in this Bill. The Noble Lord said in effect to the local authorities,"You need not fear that the Board will cut down your programmes," and yet when we look at this Clause the Government are asking that the Minister shall have power to do that very thing—limiting the expenditure by reference to the general standard of expenditure in other areas. I believe that this power may be used—I will not put it higher than that —in a way which will do incalculable harm to the cause of education, and put the clock of progress back by a great many years. I do not believe that such wide
discretionary powers should be reposed in any Minister of the Crown. This is quite contrary to the old policy, not only in regard to education, but in regard to public services generally. It is for Parliament, and more especially for the House of Commons, to declare how much money shall be made available for certain services, and it is the administration alone which is left to the Minister in charge.
This Bill reverses that policy. Under this Clause the Minister can say,"I will allow here, and disallow there." He can do that without reference to this House. It is true that the House of Commons will still vote the Estimates of the Department, but the Minister, in regard to the expenditure of any particular educational authority, will, as a result of this Clause, have much wider powers than those which he now possesses, to interfere with the expenditure, and consequently with the programmes, of local education authorities. That is a retrograde step and contrary to the best interests of the country.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: In the early part of his speech the Noble Lord quoted figures showing that both on capital account and on ordinary expenditure there had been in recent years a very considerable advance, but he seemed to have forgotten entirely what. was the cause of that advance. Let me remind him that in his Report for the year 1923–24 he said:
In our last report we were able to record that since the close of the year then under review it had been found possible, owing to the relaxation of the extreme financial pressure previously existing, to remove many of the restraining influences on education which it had unfortunately been necessary to maintain. The year with which this report is concerned showed the completion of this process, and we were able to announce to the local authorities the reversion to our former practice of considering proposals for expenditure on their merits.
This was announced in Circular No. 1328 on 3rd April, 1924. Throughout this Report there are repeated cases where education authorities are urged to take up additional expenditure. The Noble Lord cannot expect local authorities to take an interest in education, and then turn to them and say:"We are not going to pay for it." Emphasis is laid in the Report on the extent to which secondary education is very much more in demand than it was, and authorities
are urged to deal with it. At the end of the Report we come to the medical service and other allied activities, and we find such expressions as this in regard to the school medical service:
We hope that it will be possible to make a concerted effort during the next few years to secure the complete and comprehensive service which the country so urgently requires.
Then there is the same desire, very strongly expressed, in regard to secondary schools. Next, on the question of defective children, we were told this:
Careful scrutiny of the 1923 returns, however, suggests that there are at least 200,000 defective children for whom special schools are needed, and if this figure is even approximately correct it is obvious how large is the deficiency which still exists in this type of school provision.
So also with regard to physical training and nursery schools and evening play centres, and there is a special paragraph urging that these should receive a great deal more attention than they had had in the past. We fear that there is to be a cutting down of those very things which only a year or two ago the Noble Lord was urging the local authorities to take up with very much more vigor than before. He said to them in this Report,"You have practised economy; now you are free to go ahead with those schemes which have been so seriously delayed in the past."
What we want to understand is, what is the reason for this change of policy? Why is it that only a short time ago they were told to go ahead—there is not a word in the Report to suggest that there has been any excessive expenditure at all—and now they are told in this Bill that there has been excessive expenditure and that that will 'have to be cut down.? As the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. D. M. Cowan) said only a few minutes ago, it is this continued change, this lack of policy Which involves the education authorities in not knowing from one day to another what is going to happen to them, that is causing so much uncertainty in this important matter.
Then, if we turn to the Memorandum on the cost per child that has been issued by the Department, we find that the cost per child is divided over salaries, loans, administration, other expenditure, and special services. Salaries are fixed by
the Burnham scale. There is only one way of economising in those salaries, and that is by increasing the supply of uncertificated and supplementary teachers. If that is going to be the policy of the Government in cutting down expenditure, I am quite sure that the country will have something to say in regard to it. Are the Government going to cut down loan charges? If so it means that the local authorities are not now securing the best terms they can on their loans. That is a grave reflection on the local authorities, if there is any proof in regard to it. There might be something to be said in regard to administration. Then there is"other expenditure." largely a question of local rates, cost of fuel and light, in regard to which it will he found on inquiry that if there is one thing about which local authorities are exercising the very greatest care and supervision, it is such as that. Then you are left with the special services. There are, perhaps, two directions in which there is a greater contrast in expenditure between certain authorities as regards special services. There are the medical services, and any attempt to cut down expenditure there is going to react on the whole health of the country. There is the question of the provision of meals, the schools for defective children, physical training, evening play centres, and national schools.
10.0 P.M.
I understood the Noble Lord to say that there is to be some sort of investigation as to the action of various similar authorities in order to try and bring them on to some sort of common basis in regard to various items of expenditure. I have here taken from the Memorandum on the cost per child the figures relating to the whole of the authorities in County Boroughs, whose average attendance is between 6,000 and 7,000. Those figures ought to be particularly interesting to the Noble Lord, because I find that in the case of Hastings the total expenditure is 264s. 2d. per child. The charge for Southport is 243s. 5d. That is a difference of more than 20s. If one comes to look at the question of salaries, one finds that Hastings again is the highest with 194s. 9d., standing at 8s. above Oxford. When one considers the loan charges one finds that Hastings is again the highest. When one comes to administration, Hastings is the second highest.
When one comes to other expenditure, Hastings is again second highest. When one comes to the special services—medical services, meals, schools for defective children—Hastings is not only the highest, but the highest by something like 50 per cent. above the next highest. Is the Noble Lord going to tell Hastings that their expenditure is too high? Is Hastings going to be set up as one of the authorities where expenditure is excessive and has to be cut down?
What we on these benches desire to see is that Hastings should rather be held up as an example to other authorities, unless the people of Hastings sent the Noble Lord here misunderstanding altogether what his education policy is. What we certainly fear is that this question of excessive expenditure is going to be used in a way that is totally objectionable to the whole spirit in which we desire to see educational policy conducted in this country. I should like, in conclusion, to refer to Lord Bryce's introduction to the Cambridge Essays in Education, published in 1918, in which he says in his
concluding words:
In the stress and competition of our time, the future belongs to the nations that recognise the worth of knowledge, and that can best understand how to apply the accumulative experience of the past. In the long run it is knowledge and wisdom that rule the world—not knowledge only, but knowledge applied in a width of view, a sympathetic comprehension of the mind of other nations. They are the essentials of statesmanship.
If we are to regard statesmanship by a declaration of that kind, then what we find in Clause 14 and the policy which the Noble Lord defended—not, I believe, because he thinks it will be the best for the country, but because it has been dictated by the Chancellor—is neither in accordance with the best interests of the nation nor of the whole world.

Mr. PALIN: The Clause that we are discussing to-night has given local authorities more doubts than even Circular 1371 or Circular 44. It may be, as the President of the Board of Education has told us, that he has received no resolutions of protest from the Municipal Corporations Association or from the associations representative of educational committees. But they do not meet every week. Their meetings are usually monthly, and some even meet at longer intervals, and they are only just
realising the significance of this particular Clause, and realising what it may mean to them. If they had their choice, I think there is not the slightest doubt that, of the three, they would take those which the President of the Board of Education set out previously, because there was something definite about them. We did know the amount of the economy he proposed to indulge in. They could calculate what this would mean and they generally knew what they were in for.
On this occasion we do not know. It is left entirely to the Minister's discretion. He says he wants to be kind to us and that he does not want to pillory any authority. How is he going to do it 1 Undoubtedly the Clause, as it is drafted, gives him power to refuse further grants to a particular authority who is spending more than a comparable authority. What I anticipate he is going to do is this. He is not going to take the manly and straightforward course of saying,"Your expenditure on special services is too high and your expenditure on secondary education is too high." I am sure he will not say, '' Your expenditure on medical officers' salaries is too high," because the British Medical Association can give points to the Miners' Union or any other union in the matter of getting salaries. He is not going to say to a particular education authority,"You have no right to give your children free secondary education while other people are having to pay for it."He is not going to do anything of that kind. He is going to say, "your total expenditure on all forms of education is higher than that of some other authorities. I am sorry. I have no objection myself, and you are doing a great work; but an Act of Parliament has laid the duty on me to say you cannot get any more than a certain amount, the total amount being calculated per head of the population."
It is quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman has this in his mind because, strange to say, it slipped out at Bradford, What has Bradford been doing? Hon. and learned Gentlemen who sit on the other side representing the Universities would say at once, and would be quite right in saying, that a great deal of the money that is being spent in Bradford is not spent on instruction at all, but on preparing children and making them fit
to receive instruction. Millions are being piled up in Bradford on account of little children having been brought into the world with twisted limbs and stunted minds, and authorities have to spend money to straighten out those twisted limbs. You get special schools to deal with myopic sight and physically defective children generally. This means small classes and skilled medical attention and skilled teaching and a big capital expenditure on the schools, not on the particular buildings themselves, but on the variety of schools which it is necessary to have to correct these things. Bradford had to spend a great deal at one time on the feeding of school children, but the wisdom of the nation and this House had seen fit to make a good deal of that unnecessary.
The Unemployment Insurance Act has reduced the expenditure on starving children and a more liberal scale of relief by boards of guardians has also relieved it. I am optimistic enough to believe, unless this expenditure is cut down, that automatically in the course of a few years we shall have a healthy childhood which will make the necessity for this special provision to be unnecessary. But in the meantime our schools are needing attention. Bradford has never spent a great deal of money on school buildings. It has spent it on the needs of the children themselves. Bradford has still large classes and uncertificated teachers on its staff, but all these things have been necessary, due to the cursed system which brought those stunted minds and twisted limbs into the world. Now we have got secondary education and it may be asked, I quite understand, why should I, having little children in secondary schools, receive more benefit than I pay in rates, and why should a man because he lives in another town, with as limited income as not have the same opportunity?
What Ministers feel is that people are realising the benefits of secondary education and that the privileged position that they and their fellows occupy is being challenged by these children as time goes on. We are now getting secondary education in the schools, but while Eton and the other public schools where the sons of hon. Members opposite are educated have ample playing fields, ours is an adapted elementary school with an
asphalt playground, and when we are willing to meet the requirements of the inspectors of the Board of Education, then we are told that because Nottingham or other places of similar size and importance have not spent this total amount of money on these particular things that neither shall we spend it. If the Minister has not had some resolutions or protests from the municipal corporations he jolly soon will have, and what is more, camouflage it with the clever, innocent speeches as you like, when the effect comes down to those people who are beginning to realise the value of education, it will stir them up and all the clever speeches in the world will not protect hon. Members opposite from the inevitable reaction that will come about, and which will eventually sweep them from office unless they see the red light in time.

Mr. HADEN GUEST: I was very much surprised, in listening to the Minister's speech, not to hear anything whatever on the subject of economy. I think he mentioned a large number of other subjects, but he said nothing of economy, and as this is an economy Bill one expects to hear about economy, on which subject we on this side are as much interested as he. I do not want to rule out any Department from economy, if economy can be made, but the Minister completely failed in showing—in that he did not deal with the subject—how this particular Clause was going to enable him to make economies at all. He said in fact that with regard to the necessitous areas he already had the powers which this Clause would give him. If that is so, what advantage is there to him in passing this particular Clause? It is true that we on this side many of us regard education from rather a different point of view from that of the right hon. Gentleman. We regard it as investment, and when you are making economies in investment it is a different thing from making economies in illegitimate expenditure such as expenditure on armaments.
I should like someone speaking from the other side to explain to us what has not yet been explained—in what way this is going to help us to reduce the amount of expenditure at all, that is legitimately, because if it is not going to help us, what is the use of it? And if it is going to help us to reduce expenditure, then in
what way is that reduction to be carried out? Let me point out that this particular proviso, in spite of what the Minister says, is regarded as very threatening indeed by certain of the educational authorities in this country. They put the matter in this way: Up to the present the education authority making up its budget knows how much in the grants it is going to get within the limit of the fair estimate, and can in consequence make its rates. If this Clause be passed, then the Minister in addition to having the power which he already has with regard to passing expenditure, because he has to approve such expenditure for grants, will have the additional power at the end of a period of refusing to pay, if at his discretion he thinks that the expenditure is greater than it should be.
If the Clause has not that meaning, what additional powers does it give the Minister? If it has that meaning, in what way is the. Minister s discretion to be exercised? In the course of the Debates on this Economy Bill we have had instances of the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to raid various funds which were regarded by the ordinary critizen of this country as safe and exempt from any demands by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Is this Clause intended to make funds intended for education also available for raids by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have not had much explanation of this Clause from the Noble Lord, and I wonder whether it is not almost—shall I say—deliberately obscure. It is all very well to say that regard will be had to the circumstances of the area of an authority, and to the standards of expenditure, but what are the standards of expenditure? The Minister instanced the salaries of teachers. There you have an item of expenditure concerning which it is possible to make comparisons, but the Noble Lord knows that the officials of his Board have great difficulty in arriving at standards which are comparable in regard to different items of educational expenditure. I have here an extract from the Board's own statement on the matter in which they set out causes which may affect the cost per child. These include salaries of teachers; loan charges; administration and other expenditure; books, stationery, and apparatus; upkeep of buildings: fuel, light, and cleaning; rates and taxes; special
services, including the medical inspection of defective children and the organisation of physical training; geographical features of the area affecting the distribution of the population, and so forth. How are you going to make comparable standards among all these factors?
Anyone with any practical experience of educational administration knows that even in one department, the medical de partment, it is exceedingly difficult to arrive at standards of comparison as between one area and another, or even between two parts of the same area. It is, in fact, so difficult that the cost of education varies enormously. London's expenditure on elementary education in 1925–26 was 346s. 10d. per child. In Tipton it was 164s. 8d. per child and in White-haven 164e. 5d. per child. That indicates the great differences which exist and the difficulty of making comparisons. It is a matter on which we want further light. There was published in 1923 by the official publishers a document dealing with the cost per child. How is it we have no information up to date on this subject, although I understand that information is available in the Noble Lord's office? I will not say that such information has been suppressed, but why has the latest information as to the cost per child in relation to the different areas, not been given to the public and made available for this Debate? It seems unfortunate that as regards official figures, one is obliged to rely for comparisons as to cost per child on the figures for 1920, 1921 and 1922, which are the latest figures available.
Taking special services, for instance, and comparing the cost with regard to certain items in those services as between certain different districts, in London the cost of special services for the schools for blind, deaf, epileptic, and defective children was 15s. 11d. in 1920–21, and in Grimsby the cost was 1d. How are you to compare those figures? My hen. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Cecil Wilson) referred to the high expenditure of Hastings. One does not know whether that is expenditure on special services for defectives or otherwise, but one hopes the Minister will throw a little light on the subject. It will be rather interesting. The examples I have given may be multiplied indefinitely from the experience of anyone
who has any understanding of education. Take the question of the expenditure of public authorities on the feeding of school children. How are you to compare the expenditure of one authority with that of another? I have certain figures which show the amount of money spent per child on feeding At Easter, 1925. In Hampstead it was 0.139d., in Islington 1.171d., in Stepney, 3.902d., in Greenwich 0.965d., and in Kensington 1.540d. I merely give those figures to show that even in London, dealing with a specific department of a particular sub-division of a special service, the variations in cost are so great that it would be only by a very elaborate and complicated mathematical operation that one could arrive at any possibility of making a real comparison.
One wonders whether the Minister has any special desire to make a very accurate comparison, because one cannot help feeling that his method is one which really cannot be applied, but that what he is asking us for is not a power to do something which, according to his own statement, to a large extent he already has power to do, but power to reduce expenditure on education at his own discretion, for I can see no other way in which the different areas can be compared than by a method which he will use entirely at his own discretion. His own speech was, it appeared to me, extraordinarily evasive, if he will permit me to say so. He did not deal with economy, or say how standards were to be compared, or exactly what he proposed to do. He said he refused to pillory any authorities, but he really seemed to me to refuse to come to the point of dealing with the actual method by which he was going to operate. He evaded the real discussion, and asked us to give him—I think this is a fair way of putting it—a general power to reduce expenditure as he pleased. I put it to him that there is no way in which you can fairly compare many of the costs of the different educational authorities at all, that it is in practice impossible to do so, and that the only real way to deal with educational expenditure is to consider it item by item, as it is the duty of the Board of Education to do, to see whether, item by item, it is justified for that particular place, without attempting to set up any arbitrary standards of com-
parison between different places, because those standards of comparison are not valid.
I had, some years ago, the honour to be one of the medical inspectors of the London County Council, and it is one of the duties of the medical inspectors of the London County Council to make comparisons between the physical conditions of the children between the different areas of London itself. We were all trained persons in that particular respect. We were all doing the same work according to the same standards, and working according to a definite schedule; but, in order to bring our own work to a focus, in order to insure we were not constantly using different standards in our own work, we had to have periodical conferences to deal with one small subdivision of the work of the education authority. That is a good example of the difficulty of comparing the work of education authorities in the different branches, and I do not see how you are fairly to compare, or fairly to set up standards of comparison. If economy be really possible, the Minister ought to have pointed out, as he did not, where that economy was going to be made. If he does not point out where the economy is going to he made, then, I think, the Committee is justified in thinking that the Minister is asking us for a general authority to reduce expenditure, which public opinion in this country has already refused him in the case of the Circulars which have been named so often in this Debate, and that he wants, not power really to economise, but power to slaughter schemes of education of which he does not happen, personally, to approve.

Mr. MORRIS: It is a little difficult to understand why this Clause, especially Sub-section (1), is in this Bill, and it is difficult to understand that all the more after hearing the Noble Lord's speech. He says that the Clause is merely declamatory of the existing powers, and that it does not in any way add to the powers of the Board of Education. If that be so, the first sentence of the Clause as to the removal of doubts implies, at any rate, there is some doubt whether some of these powers already belong to the President of the Board of Education, and, in that case, if there be
some doubt about some of these powers, they ought not to be exercised at the moment. But the Noble Lord intends by this Clause to make it certain that these powers shall in future be exercised. To that extent, at any rate, it is an addition to the powers of the President of the Board of Education. I can imagine that such an addition, far from being welcome to the Noble Lord, must be very embarrassing to him, and much as we may object to adding to his powers, the President himself has far greater objections to adding to the powers of any Minister. Speaking in the Debate on an Economy Bill in 1922, the Noble Lord, objecting then to the increase which was contemplated in that Bill in the powers exercised by Ministers, he said:
The gravamen of the charge against the Government is that under this Bill (among other Ministers) the Minister of Education take into their hands complete power to make Economies where they can make them, and to regulate as they like the grants to local authorities. That is, undoubtedly, putting into the hands of those Ministers a power which this House, in ordinary circumstances, would be very reluctant to grant." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1922; col. 979, Vol. 156.]
The very powers to which he was then objecting were the powers he now comes to this House to have transferred to him at this moment. They are powers to effect economies, quite irrespective of the decision of this House, although he denies, as I understand him, that this Sub-section is intended to make any economies at all. If this Sub-section be not intended to make any economies whatsoever, why is it included in an Economy Bill? Why did he not come to the House with a declaratory Bill of his own to state what the powers of the President of the Board of Education were. If they have nothing to do with economy it is a strange thing that they should be included in this Bill.
It is clearly the intention of the Minister, by administrative acts, without reference to the House of Commons to effect what economies he can. I listened with amazement to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) whose view seems to be that a good deal of money is being wasted upon education and that we are not getting value for our money. In this respect how does this country compare with other progress-
sive countries in regard to its, expenditure upon education. How does it compare with the Colonies? In New Zealand they are spending 53s. 7d. per head of the population as compared with our 38s. 7d. In Canada the amount is 60s. per head and in the United States 57s. 10d. per head of the population. It is said that our future depends upon our producing a well-educated population that will hold its own in the commercial and industrial competition of the world. The United States is spending 57s. 10d. per head of its population upon education and yet the hon. Member for Argyllshire asks:"What are you producing in this country? "

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Do those figures include the expenditure of local authorities as well as national expenditure?

Mr. MORRIS: Yes, they include local as well as national expenditure. If this country is spending too much on education then there are two checks upon that expenditure. The first is in regard to the rates. The second is national taxation, and if the local authorities in certain areas are more progressive than in some other areas their expenditure at first hand is controlled by the ratepayers and that is the first check. If the local area is prepared to support the expenditure proposed by its local education authority what business has the right hon. Gentleman to say"We will not endorse the expenditure you are estimating for"If the local authority is prepared to support its education authority then the demand should be made on the taxpayers to meet that expenditure. I believe the Minister of Education is a good educationalist and that in his heart of hearts he believes in educational advancement. All the speeches he delivered at the beginning of his period of office fully and fairly represents his views upon education. What is the explanation of the change? Simply that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has come forward with this Bill. What does the Chancellor of the Exchequer care about the education of the people of this country? It is true that he addresses meetings of school girls and declares himself in favour of education, but when he has an opportunity of doing something for the educational advancement of the country the only thing he does is to put forward proposals of this kind in an
Economy Bill. Here is a Clause which apparently has nothing whatever to do with economy but its effect is to take away the control of educational finance from the Board of Education.

Mr. MAXTONrose—

HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Mr. MAXTON: I certainly think that I deserve that tribute, not for the contribution that I am going to make to the Committee's consideration of this Bill, but for the pertinacity with which I have listened to all the speeches that have been made on the subject to-day. This is my first intervention in the Economy Bill Debates at any stage of the proceedings, but I have listened with increasing wonder and increasing admiration as we have gone from Clause to Clause of this Committee stage. I remember that it was always a never-failing joke to hon. Members on the opposite side of the House, when they sat over here during the brief period of the Labour Government, because a certain Minister of the Labour Government averred on one occasion that it was impossible for him to do conjuring tricks and produce schemes like rabbits out of a hat. That was a mark of inferiority as compared with the right hon. Gentlemen who now occupy the Front Government Bench, because, when Clause after Clause of this Economy Bill, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised is going to mean a great saving to the national costs, comes up for discussion, the appropriate Minister comes before the House and explains to the House, and proves to me quite conclusively, that, while each one of them is going to take something away from some group of individuals and put something into the national pocket, everybody from whom that is going to be taken is going to be infinitely better off than he was before. The Minister for Education beats all the others, because he tells us that this Clause gives him absolutely no power at all, but he proves to my satisfaction that, with the negation of power that he receives under this Economy Bill, the educational service is going to be improved, the teachers are going to be better off than they ever were before, and the education of the children is going to be on a more efficient level than it ever
has been at any period in the country's history.
I remember sitting, away in an old-fashioned farmhouse somewhere in the middle of Yorkshire, a day or two after the present Minister of Education had assumed his office, and hearing over the wireless his dulcet tones from two or three hundred miles away. He was speaking at a very later hour in the evening—I think it was midnight—and his tones were mellifluous even at that distance and under those somewhat difficult conditions. He had been attending a dinner with the Prime Minister, and, at an appropriate stage in the evening's proceedings, he explained to those assembled at the dinner, who might not be listening, and also to millions more throughout the country who were listening, exactly what he and the Prime Minister were going to do for education. But, as he explains this Clause to us to-night, he is even better than he prophesied. I am more particularly interested, as he knows, in the ultimate effect that this will have on Scottish education. I believe it would be possible, if we could maintain Scottish education at a high level, for us still to go on carrying this British nation on our shoulders; but, if Scottish education is to be reduced step by step in proportion to reductions in English education, then I am afraid the intellectual contribution, and the contribution of energy and character, which Scotland up to now has freely and gladly given to this nation, will be somewhat considerably reduced in the future. I listened to the statement of the Minister when he showed that the national contribution to English education during the last three years—he spoke so rapidly that I was only able to catch the millions and not the odd hundred thousands, but I gathered that he proves that he has not reduced expenditure on education by quoting the figures for 1924–25, 1925–26 and the estimated figures for 1926–27. and I think he stated that in 1924–25 the expenditure was £68,000,000, in 1925–26 it was£70,000,000, while in 1926–27 the estimated expenditure was £70,900.000—roughly an increase of £800.000 for the ensuing year.

Lord E. PERCY: £650,000.

Mr. MAXTON: Almost £750,000 more. I might complain very seriously that the increase ought to be very much greater.
If I remember the 1918 Act for England as I remember the 1918 Act for Scotland, it gave the education authorities certain duties—certain"musts"and a number of"mays." I assume the Minister sends round the inspectors and auditors to see that the compulsory duties imposed on the education authorities are fully carried out, and what every one of us hoped was that as soon as we got away from the immediate post-War years, the optional Sections of the 1918 Act would be put into full operation, and that the full operation of those Sections would mean a very much greater increase from year to year over a number of years than is represented by £650,000 on an annual estimate of £70,000. But if this Clause only gives the power that the Minister has already got to veto the expenditure sent up to him by the authorities, there was no reason in the interest of economy why he should estimate merely for £70,900,000, because, if I understand it, should you pass this into law in the course of the next month, every suggestion for a new development that comes up from any English education authority will be subject to scrutiny and subject to his veto. That will immediately affect the expenditure of the year 1926–27, and presumably while he and we have voted £70,900,000 for the purposes of education during 1926–27—

Lord E. PERCY: That is only England. It does not include Scotland.

Mr. MAXTON: I am being very careful to keep strictly in order by dealing with the English problem. I am only dealing with the English problem, and so far as I make reference in the course of the next hour or two to the Scottish position it will merely be by way of illustrating the devastating effects this Clause will have on the whole national education system of the country. If the Noble Lord is going to exercise that veto, this £70,900,000 which the House has voted for the purposes of education in England during the ensuing year is a figure which means absolutely nothing at all, because the Minister can veto every single proposal that involves capital expenditure or opens up any new educational activity, so that although we have an estimate of £70,900,000, an increase of £650,000 over last year and nearly£2.000,000 over 1924–5, in actual fact with the power of veto that we are putting into the hands of the
Ministry by this Bill the expenditure for 1926 for education in England may be something entirely different from what the House of Commons has decided is to be spent on education. Exercising his administrative power, sitting at Whitehall, with absolutely no effective control so far as the House of Commons is concerned over his operations except on the one day in the year when his salary comes up for discussion, he will be able to decide that the national expenditure on education shall be not £70,000,000 but, may be, anything down to £40,000,000 or £50,000,000: a bare sufficiency to carry out the routine compulsory minimum education on the standard of which it is carried out by the meanest, poorest and least progressive education authority in England. That is how I interpret the power which he is now asking us to give him.
He conies forward to minimise this power and to say that it is only what he has already, that he is not asking for anything more than he now possesses or more than what every Minister of Education has exercised, including his predecessor the right hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan), but if we give him this Clause to-night, as he is expecting to get it, he will declare, time after time, when hon. Members question some refusal to their particular area—even a Tory Member will be up in arms when his own particular education authority approaches him, because the right hon. Gentleman has turned down this scheme or that scheme in their area—sitting there, all-powerful from day to day, au autocrat with unlimited power:"This instruction I got from the House of Commons on the Economy Bill: the power confirming my right to cut down the educational services in this country." He is not only doing that to the educational authorities throughout England, but in cutting down the English amount of £70,900,000 he is automatically cutting down what we receive in Scotland. He knows nothing about the difficulties of Scottish education. The hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) who spoke does not know very much about it.
The Scottish education grant goes to Scotland in one lump sum and is distributed throughout the authorities, not on a percentage basis, because per-
centages vary between 39 per cent. in Glasgow—I will not speak exactly, but certainly in Glasgow not 50 per cent. is paid out of the Exchequer, whereas in some of the remote parts of the Highlands as much as 80 per cent. is paid to outlying authorities, owing to special difficulties of transport. I happened to be a member of the Glasgow Education Authority when the effects of the Geddes proposals came into operation on the educational system. I was one of those responsible for the administration of affairs in the City of Glasgow. I do not know the county education authorities or the education committees in England, but I know the education authorities throughout Scotland, and I know the types of individuals who sit upon them. The Noble Lady who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education served for many years with some distinction on the education authority for the County of Perth. One of my colleagues sat on the authority for Fife, I sat on the authority for the City of Glasgow and I do not know a single education authority in the whole of Scotland that needs to be restrained because of extravagant expenditure. They need prodding on and a tremendous drive before they will carry out, not fancy ideas, but what is agreed upon by all educationists as the barest minimum for an effective national general education.
Let me say, in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire, that I know the education service of Scotland inside and out. I was the son of a schoolmaster and reared in a country schoolmaster's home, the type of school where a youngster came in at five years and where, if he had special capacity, he was drafted straight from the top class into a University, where he might have the opportunity of entering a learned profession. I myself taught in a. slum school in the slummiest part of Glasgow, and I have sat upon an elementary education authority. In my opinion the youngsters coming out of the schools now are better and more effective in every way, and have every opportunity of growing up and becoming more useful citizens than the generation to which the hon. Member and I belong. I put myself in his generation, though I believe I am one behind him. I have taught in an
evening continuation school during the great period when we had compulsory education in our public schools for those children who were regarded as the absolute failures of the elementary schools, those who had attended to the age of 14 years without having been able to pass the relatively low standards laid down in what was known in the Scottish educational system as the qualifying examination. I was a teacher voluntarily; I volunteered for the task. I do not mean I was unpaid. Learned gentlemen would not accuse me of that. I volunteered for this particular branch of work which was regarded as rather a dangerous duty. I believe it was good and valuable work so far as I was concerned. It would have been much better if those youngsters were not compelled to come there at night. I got them after they had been up at five in the morning, for those were in the old 6 o'clock days, and after they had been home and washed after the dirty work of the day. They came to be educated, the failures of the educational system. Those youngsters were in small classes of 20, with the possibility of personal interest in each, with the desire on the part of the teacher, as is the general desire on the part of all teachers, to recognise that each one of those youngsters was a human being with latent capacities. When you talk about giving the educational advantages to children who show themselves capable of it I always want to know who is going to be the judge.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: The schoolmaster.

Mr. MAXTON: I would not even trust the schoolmaster to say that a boy of 12 years of age is incapable of further development. I have seen a person who only developed when he was 21 or 22. But these youngsters are capable of growing up into human beings with character, with will power, and with all the elements that really matter to the future of this nation. I have been a student of the discussions about national credit, financial stability, and the commercial future of our country and Empire. I have been anxious to learn, but I cannot say that the crumbs that have fallen from the rich man's table have tended to develop me either physically or intellectually.
That is not because of any lack of desire on my part to learn. But one thing
I have learned, and it is this; that the commercial prosperity of this country, the wealth-producing power of this country, its financial stability and its taxable capacity, depends in the ultimate, not on the men who sit around the directors' board, but on the general average standard of development in the brain, the muscle, the sinew, and the character of the toiling millions of the land, and it is no economy—it is sheer national profligacy, sheer irresponsibility and the shirking of duty—for this House to hand over to the President of the Board of Education this power. You talk about Mussolinis and Lenins, here we are giving into the hands of one man the right to deny to the mass of the children in England and Scotland that personal development to which each one of them has a right. You are handing over to him the right to decide what intellectual development the future citizens, who are to be the wealth producers and rulers of this country, are to have. It is too big a power to give even to the most capable man, and much too big a power to give to the present President of the Board of Education.

Lord E. PERCY: The Committee will agree that there is a difficulty about this Debate. Most of the speeches of hon. Members opposite have so far been an attack on a very wide field, and I should be out of order in dealing with them. Hon. Members who have listened to the Debate will agree that the appropriate answer to many of the speeches would be an exposure of the Estimates of the Board of Education. I have no fear of such an exposition and I should welcome the opportunity of making one at an early date, but I want to suggest to hon. Members that their speeches have been either mainly directed to the general question, and I can hardly reply to them except on the basis of facts applicable to an Estimate Debate, or they have been directed to one or other of the specific Amendments on the Paper. I think the time has come when the Committee will be ready to come to specific Amendments, having satisfied itself that it has directed all possible arguments on the general issue against the devoted head of the Minister of Education.
11.0 P.M.
I will say only two things, and they Rill be entirely uncontroversial and will
not stimulate any hon. Member to reply. The first is as regards Scotland. I think it is due to Scottish Members to say one word as to the effect upon Scotland of any powers exercised by an English Minister under this Bill. Incidentally this will be of interest to Englishmen as well. There is no intention on the part of the Government to use the powers defined in this Clause for the purpose of forcing down local expenditure below the figure estimated in the Board's Estimates. We have no intention of doing it, and we do not believe that that could properly he done. Therefore, Scotland has not to anticipate any reduction of the grant due to it owing to a reduction of the local expenditure in England and the grant towards that expenditure falling below the figures quoted before. Instead of £650,000 it ought to have been£710,000: I correct that.
I would remind Scottish Members that it is not only by the President of the Board of Education cutting down local expenditure in England that the position of Scottish education authorities may be prejudiced. One of the things which has prejudiced Scottish local educational authorities in the past is that there has been a consistent habit during four or five years of over-estimating the probable expenditure of the year, which is leading the Scottish Education Office to base its block grant on a figure which is not in fact realised, and which is leading to greater arrears of grants to be made up afterwards. At any rate, the Scottish authorities are in a better position this year, because, instead of over-estimating, I have under-estimated, and they have already had a windfall in the shape of a Supplementary Estimate, and they now get a further windfall in the shape of an increased education grant for the coming year. It was only fair to the Scottish education authorities to make that clear.
On the general question, may I say that hon. Members have tried to put me in a dilemma by saying that if I was not curtailing education what wag this Bill for? and so on. They know that I am not curtailing educational expenditure since educational expenditure is going to increase in the coming year. The answer that I would give them broadly—I ask them to be content with that, and to leave the details to be
filled in on the Education Estimates—is that it is obvious that every education authority in this country at present is faced by a tremendous programme of heavy capital expenditure. Durham has been mentioned. Durham has sent in a programme of building for this year, strictly within the limits of Memorandum 44, and it involves the building of no fewer than 25 new elementary schools. And that is not untypical of other counties. When you have got demands of that kind, it is absolutely essential, from the point of view of local authorities, of the central Government, and of everyone concerned, to husband your resources in current expenditure as far as you can without hurting educational efficiency, in order to be able to provide

for those demands which face local authorities. That is the only conception I have of the immediate future and the general spirit in which I approach this economy provision is from that point of view. I think the Committee will agree that I have gone as far as I can be expected to do in a general reply to the points raised, and I hope the Committee will agree with me that the time has come to divide on this Amendment and come to the specific Amendments which can be discussed briefly and to the point.

Question put,"That the words proposed to be left out, to the word expenditure,' in page 10, line 3, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 119.

Division No. 173.]
AYES.
[11.12 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hohler, sir Gerald Fitzroy


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hope, Capt, A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Albery, Irving James
Davidson. Major-General Sir John H.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Davies. Dr. Vernon
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow. Cent'l)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Dawson. Sir Philip
Horlick. Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Apsley, Lord
Dlxey, A. C.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald


Ashley. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Drewe, C.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen, Sir Aylmer


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Eden, Captain Anthony
Huntingfield. Lord


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hurd, Percy A.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Elveden, Viscount
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen't)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Everard, W. Lindsay
Jacob, A. E.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Fairfax. Captain J. G.
Jephcott, A. R.


Bellairs, Commander Canyon W.
Falle, sir Bertram G.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Betterton, Henry B.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Fermoy, Lord
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Blundell, F. N.
Finburgh, S.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Brass, Captain W.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Lamb, J. O.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Frece, Sir Walter de
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Briggs, J. Harold
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon Sir Philip


Briscoe, Richard George
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Locker-Lampson. Com. O.(Handsw'th)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Lougher, L.


Brown, Col. D.C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lucas-Tooth, sir Hugh Vere


Brown. Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Goff, sir Park
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Buckingham, Sir H.
Grace, Jibe
Lumley. L. R.


Bullock, Captain M.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (l. of W.)


Burman, J. B.
Gretton, colonel john
MacIntyre, Ian


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Grotrian. H. Brent
MacMillan, Captain H.


Campbell, E. T.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Cassels, J. D.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Macquisten, F. A.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hammersley, S. S.
Mac Robert, Alexander M.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hannon Patrick Joseph Henry
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Chadwick, sir Robert Burton
Harland, A.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.


Charters, Brigadier-General J.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Meller, R. J.


Chilcott. Sir Warden
Haslam, Henry C.
Merriman, F. B.


Churchill, Rt. Hon Winston Spencer
Hawke, John Anthony
Meyer, Sir Frank.


Clarry, Reginald George
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Clayton, G. C.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Mitchell, Sir w. Lane (Streatham)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Cope. Major William
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J, T. C.


Couper, J, B.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Moreing. Captain A. H.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Hills, Major John Walter
Murchison, C, K.


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hilton, Cecil
Nuttal, Ellis


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Penny, Frederick George


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Percy, Led Eustace (Hastings)


Perring, Sir William George
Sandon, Lord
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Plelou, D. P.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Tinne, J. A.


Pitcher, G.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Vaughan-Morgan. Col. K. P.


Pliditch, Sir Philip
Shepperson, E. W.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Power, Sir John Cecil
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Skelton, A. N.
Watts, Dr. T.


Preston, William
Slaney, Major p. Kenyon
Wells, S. R.


Price, Major C. W. M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wheler. Major Sir Granville C. H.


Raine. W.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Ramsden, E.
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Remer, J. R.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Rice, Sir Frederick
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Womersley, W. J.


Richardson. Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Ropner, Major L.
Storry-Deans, R.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Strickland, Sir Gerald
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Woodcock, Colonel H C.


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Stuart, Hon. J, (Moray and Nairn)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Sandeman, A. Stewart
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser



Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G, (Dumbarton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sanderson, Sir Frank
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Major Sir Harry Bamston and Captain




Margesson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Saklatvala, Shapuril


Alexander, A. v. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Ammon, Charles George
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scrymgeour, E.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayday, Arthur
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayes, John Henry
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barnes, A.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Barr, J.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Briant, Frank
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Broad, F. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Bromley, J,
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stamford, T. W.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stephen, Campbell


Cape, Thomas
Kelly, W. T.
Sullivan, Joseph


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Sutton, J, E.


Clowes, S.
Kirkwood, D.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, F.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lunn, William
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Connolly, M.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Thurtle, E.


Cove, W. G.
Mackinder, W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Cowan. D. M. (Scottish Universities
MacLaren, Andrew
Varley, Frank B.


Crawfurd, H. E.
March, S.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Maxton, James
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dennison, R.
Montague, Frederick
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Duncan, C.
Morris, R. H.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


England, Colonel A.
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, J.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Oliver, George Harold
Whiteley, W.


Fenby, T. D.
Owen, Major G.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gillett, George M.
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gosling, Harry
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson. C. H (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenall, T.
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Wright, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Riley, Ben



Groves, T.
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Robinson. Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Rose, Frank H.
Warne.


Question put, and agreed to.

Lord E. PERCY: I beg to move,"That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

I gather that communications have passed through the usual channels and in view of that fact, I submit this Motion.

Committee report Progress to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders' were rend, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn—[Commander Eyres Mansell.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.